20 Feb
2006
20 Feb
'06
4:49 a.m.
I read this in the jackit-devel list archives:
http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_id=9639236&forum_id…
I have an Athlon 64-X2 machine, which I'd intended to use at the
main machine in my studio. I also have a Celeron machine, which
is still in use, having started out as my proof-of-concept for
a Linux studio box. One person commented that with their 64-X2
machine, that a larger period size, 256 versus 128, seems better.
This is generally true for avoiding xruns.
I'm wondering, is an even larger period size 1K or 2K going
to make a 64-X2 machine usable. I primarily use ardour,
rosegarden4, and audacity for my audio work. What factors impact
the timing problem that I might exploit to minimize it? I'm
not too adverse to trying newer versions of a kernel and jack.
Right now I'm running kernel 2.6.12 jackit 0.100.1. I remember
something about there being a pervasive udev change starting in
the 2.6.15 kernel. I'd like to stay under that rev., if that's
true.
Related to this is that I'd like to retire my 200MHz Pentium
I machine in our office - 10 years old this month. Would you
recommend avoiding the 64-X2 machine for now with my audio work
(OK, so it's play)? If so, then I'll keep using the Celeron for
music, and move the 64-X2 into the office. We'll be able to
compose emails faster than anyone on the block; sigh. It sounds
like I really just need to be patient and let the kernel & jack
development teams sort this all out. But, if I can make some
adjustments and get useful results, then I'd move that direction.
Thanks....
P.S.: If you think I should subscribe to jackit-devel and take
my question there, then I'll do that.
--
Kevin
20 Feb
20 Feb
5:08 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Athlon 64-X2 - slightly different question than the FAQ
On Mon, 2006-02-20 at 00:49 -0800, Kevin Cosgrove wrote:
One person commented that with their 64-X2
machine, that a larger period size, 256 versus 128, seems better.
This is generally true for avoiding xruns.
I'm wondering, is an even larger period size 1K or 2K going
to make a 64-X2 machine usable.
What exactly is the problem that you're having?
Lee
5:15 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Athlon 64-X2 - slightly different question than the FAQ
On 20 February 2006 at 4:07, Lee Revell <rlrevell(a)joe-job.com> wrote:
On Mon, 2006-02-20 at 00:49 -0800, Kevin Cosgrove
wrote:
Indecision. I'm wondering if it's worth it to tear my Celeron
system out of my studio and install my 64-X2 system in its place.
I haven't actually used the X2 box for anything but sound file
editing yet. I've been predicting problems based on some of the
postings I've seen about those Athlon 64-X2 CPUs. I can always
put the Celeron system back into music service if the X2 doesn't
work. But, I'd rather avoid that whole ordeal, if the reality is
that it just won't work yet.
Thanks....
--
Kevin
One person commented that with their 64-X2
machine, that a larger period size, 256 versus 128, seems better.
This is generally true for avoiding xruns.
I'm wondering, is an even larger period size 1K or 2K going
to make a 64-X2 machine usable.
What exactly is the problem that you're having? 
5:27 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Athlon 64-X2 - slightly different question than the FAQ
Indecision. I'm wondering if it's worth it to
tear my Celeron
system out of my studio and install my 64-X2 system in its place.
i'm pretty sure Dave Robillard eventually got his X2 into line after various trials
and tribulation. it involved a patch to jack, and maybe some kernel config settings wrt
timers. maybe he can chime in if he sees this as i cant find the pertinent patch names or
urls in logs..
I haven't actually used the X2 box for anything
but sound file
editing yet. I've been predicting problems based on some of the
6:08 a.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Athlon 64-X2 - slightly different question than the FAQ
On Mon, 2006-02-20 at 01:15 -0800, Kevin Cosgrove wrote:
On 20 February 2006 at 4:07, Lee Revell
<rlrevell(a)joe-job.com> wrote:
Umm... the solution is trivial, all you have to do is install the
clockfix branch of JACK from CVS.
Lee
On Mon, 2006-02-20 at 00:49 -0800, Kevin Cosgrove
wrote:
Indecision. I'm wondering if it's worth it to tear my Celeron
system out of my studio and install my 64-X2 system in its place.
I haven't actually used the X2 box for anything but sound file
editing yet. I've been predicting problems based on some of the
postings I've seen about those Athlon 64-X2 CPUs. I can always
put the Celeron system back into music service if the X2 doesn't
work. But, I'd rather avoid that whole ordeal, if the reality is
that it just won't work yet.
Thanks.... One person commented that with their 64-X2
machine, that a larger period size, 256 versus 128, seems better.
This is generally true for avoiding xruns.
I'm wondering, is an even larger period size 1K or 2K going
to make a 64-X2 machine usable.
What exactly is the problem that you're having?
7:17 p.m.
New subject: [linux-audio-user] Athlon 64-X2 - slightly different question than the FAQ
On 20 February 2006 at 5:08, Lee Revell <rlrevell(a)joe-job.com> wrote:
Umm... the solution is trivial, all you have to do is
install the
clockfix branch of JACK from CVS.
Sounds good. I just grabbed the branch and got it to compile. So
far, so good. Thanks for the help!
--
Kevin
6984
days inactive
6984
days old
linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org
5 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
cdr -
Kevin Cosgrove -
Lee Revell