9 Jan
2012
9 Jan
'12
3:24 p.m.
Hi everyone,
after many years of studio work using the openSuse distro with the
kernel-rt from Jan Engelhard it seems that he no longer continues his great
work on rt kernels.
Being more on the recording engineer side of things and not a Linux expert
(user yes, expert no) I really fret at the thought of patching and
compiling my own kernel package.
I would like to hear your opinions on what distro is solid for audio work
and has a reliable rt kernel.
Also I would appreciate if you could explain the degree of difficulty and
learning curve of the specific distro.
My system:
Intel i7 950
Gigabyte motherboard
6 Gb ram
Rme HDSP 9652 audio interface
Appreciate your answers.
Moshe
P.S. I tried to use Ubuntu on the same machine I use openSuse 11.2 on and
got pretty bad results regarding latency and x runs on jack 2.
9 Jan
9 Jan
4:05 p.m.
2012/1/9 Moshe Werner <moshwe(a)gmail.com>
Hi everyone,
after many years of studio work using the openSuse distro with the
kernel-rt from Jan Engelhard it seems that he no longer continues his great
work on rt kernels.
Being more on the recording engineer side of things and not a Linux expert
(user yes, expert no) I really fret at the thought of patching and
compiling my own kernel package.
I would like to hear your opinions on what distro is solid for audio work
and has a reliable rt kernel.
Also I would appreciate if you could explain the degree of difficulty and
learning curve of the specific distro.
debian lover since 2005 here :-) *rock solid*
I won't try to explain debian learning curve because of too many if/then
sentences to work with :-)
A lot of work has been done since 2005 and actually AFAIK the features
offered by the rt patch are being merged in the kernel mainline little by
little and actually I can say that a debian stock kernel is really near the
rt one... depending on your needs (record? mixing? both? + monitoring? +
realtime fx? and how many tracks?...).
BTW, there are several multimedia distros around and they do not require
you to do tricky things on your system and some are debian based (eg. AV
linux).
P.S. I tried to use Ubuntu on the same machine I use
openSuse 11.2 on and
got pretty bad results regarding latency and x runs on jack 2.
Don't know about openSuse but Ubuntu is debian with lipstick and makeup...
too much IMHO :-)
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.*
4:23 p.m.
Hi Raffaele,
thanks for the reply!
My needs would be:
Mainly tracking (by now up to 8 channels at given time).
Mixing and monitoring - Yep
Realtime fx - also yes.
Tried AVlinux and found it to be pretty cool, but its 32 bit and till now
I'm used to 64 bit and wouldlike to keep using the more advanced PC
technology. (Finally when Protools 11 takes the leap into 64bit technology
it would be sad to see my Linux system going backwards).
Heard good things about Arch in audio use too. Anyone got experience with
Arch use for pro audio?
On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 5:05 PM, Raffaele Morelli <raffaele.morelli(a)gmail.com
wrote:
2012/1/9 Moshe Werner <moshwe(a)gmail.com>
Hi everyone,
after many years of studio work using the openSuse distro with the
kernel-rt from Jan Engelhard it seems that he no longer continues his great
work on rt kernels.
Being more on the recording engineer side of things and not a Linux
expert (user yes, expert no) I really fret at the thought of patching and
compiling my own kernel package.
I would like to hear your opinions on what distro is solid for audio work
and has a reliable rt kernel.
Also I would appreciate if you could explain the degree of difficulty and
learning curve of the specific distro.
debian lover since 2005 here :-) *rock solid*
I won't try to explain debian learning curve because of too many if/then
sentences to work with :-)
A lot of work has been done since 2005 and actually AFAIK the features
offered by the rt patch are being merged in the kernel mainline little by
little and actually I can say that a debian stock kernel is really near the
rt one... depending on your needs (record? mixing? both? + monitoring? +
realtime fx? and how many tracks?...).
BTW, there are several multimedia distros around and they do not require
you to do tricky things on your system and some are debian based (eg. AV
linux).
P.S. I tried to use Ubuntu on the same machine I
use openSuse 11.2 on and
got pretty bad results regarding latency and x runs on jack 2.
Don't know about openSuse but Ubuntu is debian with lipstick and makeup...
too much IMHO :-)
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.*
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
4:58 p.m.
On Mon, 9 Jan 2012 17:23:20 +0200
Moshe Werner <moshwe(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Heard good things about Arch in audio use too. Anyone
got experience with
Arch use for pro audio?
I've been using Arch for a couple of months now. I really like the fact
that it's very streamlined. I'm not running anything in the background
that isn't necessary and my performance on my old P4 with 2GB RAM is
better than I have any right to expect. I recently recorded and mixed an
album that had 40-50 tracks when we were done, and it was only when I
started overloading the fx that I ran into trouble, and then it was just
a matter of being smarter about submix busses and putting the fx on the
submixes to get me out of trouble. I still had lots going on with it.
Unfortunately, the degree of difficulty is quite high. Fortunately I've
been a UNIX professional for 25 years, and have been working with Linux
since the Yggdrasil days, but it still threw me a few curves before I
got the system to a workable point.
I had been a Fedora/CCRMA fan for years, but I think the last release
I had good performace on was F12. With any luck I'll be able to upgrade
the hardware soon and will get to go through this all over again! My
problem there is that I have 2 Delta 1010s so I need 2 PCI slots, and
they're getting harder to find these days.
Good luck!
- Joe
5:24 p.m.
Hi and thanks for the replies!
Actually, regarding latency, I'm running with 2.9ms right now (64 buffers 2
periods), and it's rock solid.
The problem is that soon there will be no more support for my rt kernel.
20ms. would be a huge downgrade for me, as tracking becomes a bit
problematic with such figures.
On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 5:58 PM, Joe Hartley <jh(a)brainiac.com> wrote:
On Mon, 9 Jan 2012 17:23:20 +0200
Moshe Werner <moshwe(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Heard good things about Arch in audio use too.
Anyone got experience with
Arch use for pro audio?
I've been using Arch for a couple of months now. I really like the fact
that it's very streamlined. I'm not running anything in the background
that isn't necessary and my performance on my old P4 with 2GB RAM is
better than I have any right to expect. I recently recorded and mixed an
album that had 40-50 tracks when we were done, and it was only when I
started overloading the fx that I ran into trouble, and then it was just
a matter of being smarter about submix busses and putting the fx on the
submixes to get me out of trouble. I still had lots going on with it.
Unfortunately, the degree of difficulty is quite high. Fortunately I've
been a UNIX professional for 25 years, and have been working with Linux
since the Yggdrasil days, but it still threw me a few curves before I
got the system to a workable point.
I had been a Fedora/CCRMA fan for years, but I think the last release
I had good performace on was F12. With any luck I'll be able to upgrade
the hardware soon and will get to go through this all over again! My
problem there is that I have 2 Delta 1010s so I need 2 PCI slots, and
they're getting harder to find these days.
Good luck!
- Joe
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
5:02 p.m.
On Mon, Jan 09, 2012 at 05:23:20PM +0200, Moshe Werner wrote:
Heard good things about Arch in audio use too. Anyone
got experience with
Arch use for pro audio?
Using it on 6 machines, all of them doing quite demanding audio work.
Four of them are doing real-time WFS rendering on 64 channels each.
Never had any problems. Standard unpatched kernel, but no 'obese'
desktop - just a lean window manager.
Ciao,
--
FA
Vor uns liegt ein weites Tal, die Sonne scheint - ein Glitzerstrahl.
10 Jan
10 Jan
8:02 a.m.
2012/1/9 Moshe Werner <moshwe(a)gmail.com>
Hi Raffaele,
thanks for the reply!
My needs would be:
Mainly tracking (by now up to 8 channels at given time).
Mixing and monitoring - Yep
Realtime fx - also yes.
Tried AVlinux and found it to be pretty cool, but its 32 bit and till now
I'm used to 64 bit and wouldlike to keep using the more advanced PC
technology. (Finally when Protools 11 takes the leap into 64bit technology
it would be sad to see my Linux system going backwards).
in this case debian AMD64 would be your choice. I am actually running it on
a dell workstation with Intel Xeon CPU @ 2.50GHz
64bit releases are on debian official branch since debian etch (
http://www.debian.org/ports/amd64/)
As someone pointed you don't need an RT kernel if DON'Tt want to record
16tr+monitoring+fx, 48Khz and 2.67ms latency :-)
Moreover, bear in mind that a lightweight desktop environment is what you
want for your system unless you have tons of ram and cpu cycles to spend :-)
So, whatever your choice will be, you should avoid fatter ones such kde or
gnome and try instead awesome, fluxbox, xfce.
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.*
9 Jan
9 Jan
6:29 p.m.
Am 09.01.2012 15:24, schrieb Moshe Werner:
Hi everyone,
after many years of studio work using the openSuse distro with the
kernel-rt from Jan Engelhard it seems that he no longer continues his great
work on rt kernels.
This made me somewhat puzzeled too until I tried the kernel desktop for
Suse to find out, that it delivers real good.
I have virtually the same results on the same machine. The only
difference is, that the desktop-kernel is not the same as solid if Jack
is set for very low latency (such as: lower than 5ms). For the
reall-world day to day work with big Ardour-projects, I cannot find any
difference regarding xruns.
Being more on the recording engineer side of things
and not a Linux expert
(user yes, expert no) I really fret at the thought of patching and
compiling my own kernel package.
I would like to hear your opinions on what distro is solid for audio work
and has a reliable rt kernel.
Also I would appreciate if you could explain the degree of difficulty and
learning curve of the specific distro.
My system:
Intel i7 950
Gigabyte motherboard
6 Gb ram
Rme HDSP 9652 audio interface
Appreciate your answers.
Moshe
P.S. I tried to use Ubuntu on the same machine I use openSuse 11.2 on and
got pretty bad results regarding latency and x runs on jack 2.
Ubuntu works OK for me here but is indeed not as solid and powerful as
Suses desktop-kernel. At the other hand I tend to use it anyway. There
are more xruns but not too many (about 2-3/h under serious load), it is
quite stable and forgiving(not a single case of jackd crashed or frozen)
and the best: it is the most comfortable distro I ever had. Listening to
youtube-videos or using any sound-source imaginable while Ardour is up
and running whithout even the need to think about how this happens is
kind of nice methinks ;-)
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
6:53 p.m.
Hi Hartmut,
nice to know other openSuse users.
Which version are you on? Probably 12.1?
Had no luck with jack2 and pulseaudio on Ubuntu (that is probably due too
my disability to understand how to set it up correctly).
Best regards,
Moshe
On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 7:29 PM, Hartmut Noack <zettberlin(a)linuxuse.de>wrote;wrote:
Am 09.01.2012 15:24, schrieb Moshe Werner:
Hi everyone,
after many years of studio work using the openSuse distro with the
kernel-rt from Jan Engelhard it seems that he no longer continues his
great
work on rt kernels.
This made me somewhat puzzeled too until I tried the kernel desktop for
Suse to find out, that it delivers real good.
I have virtually the same results on the same machine. The only difference
is, that the desktop-kernel is not the same as solid if Jack is set for
very low latency (such as: lower than 5ms). For the reall-world day to day
work with big Ardour-projects, I cannot find any difference regarding xruns.
Being more on the recording engineer side of things and not a Linux expert
(user yes, expert no) I really fret at the
thought of patching and
compiling my own kernel package.
I would like to hear your opinions on what distro is solid for audio work
and has a reliable rt kernel.
Also I would appreciate if you could explain the degree of difficulty and
learning curve of the specific distro.
My system:
Intel i7 950
Gigabyte motherboard
6 Gb ram
Rme HDSP 9652 audio interface
Appreciate your answers.
Moshe
P.S. I tried to use Ubuntu on the same machine I use openSuse 11.2 on and
got pretty bad results regarding latency and x runs on jack 2.
Ubuntu works OK for me here but is indeed not as solid and powerful as
Suses desktop-kernel. At the other hand I tend to use it anyway. There are
more xruns but not too many (about 2-3/h under serious load), it is quite
stable and forgiving(not a single case of jackd crashed or frozen) and the
best: it is the most comfortable distro I ever had. Listening to
youtube-videos or using any sound-source imaginable while Ardour is up and
running whithout even the need to think about how this happens is kind of
nice methinks ;-)
______________________________**_________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@lists.**linuxaudio.org<Linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org>
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/**listinfo/linux-audio-user<http://lists.lin…
______________________________**_________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@lists.**linuxaudio.org<Linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org>
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/**listinfo/linux-audio-user<http://lists.lin…
10:05 p.m.
Am 09.01.2012 18:53, schrieb Moshe Werner:
Hi Hartmut,
nice to know other openSuse users.
Which version are you on? Probably 12.1?
11.3 actually, on a T60 Laptop.
Unfortunately many pro-audio packges are not that easy to find in the
Suse-Repos anymore. So many apps like guitarix and others are best build
from source.
The build-environment and devel-packages provided by the repos is
working quite sufficient whatsoever.
Had no luck with jack2 and pulseaudio on Ubuntu (that is probably due too
my disability to understand how to set it up correctly).
Same here first but the KXStudio-Overlay solved all this automagically ;-)
Falk TX is indeed top-notch. His packages and his own tools(Catia,
Cadence etc) work as it should be:
http://kxstudio.sourceforge.net/Main_Page
best regards
HZN
Best regards,
Moshe
On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 7:29 PM, Hartmut Noack<zettberlin(a)linuxuse.de>wrote;wrote:
Am 09.01.2012 15:24, schrieb Moshe Werner:
Hi everyone,
after many years of studio work using the openSuse distro with the
kernel-rt from Jan Engelhard it seems that he no longer continues his
great
work on rt kernels.
This made me somewhat puzzeled too until I tried the kernel desktop for
Suse to find out, that it delivers real good.
I have virtually the same results on the same machine. The only difference
is, that the desktop-kernel is not the same as solid if Jack is set for
very low latency (such as: lower than 5ms). For the reall-world day to day
work with big Ardour-projects, I cannot find any difference regarding xruns.
Being more on the recording engineer side of things and not a Linux expert
(user yes, expert no) I really fret at the
thought of patching and
compiling my own kernel package.
I would like to hear your opinions on what distro is solid for audio work
and has a reliable rt kernel.
Also I would appreciate if you could explain the degree of difficulty and
learning curve of the specific distro.
My system:
Intel i7 950
Gigabyte motherboard
6 Gb ram
Rme HDSP 9652 audio interface
Appreciate your answers.
Moshe
P.S. I tried to use Ubuntu on the same machine I use openSuse 11.2 on and
got pretty bad results regarding latency and x runs on jack 2.
Ubuntu works OK for me here but is indeed not as solid and powerful as
Suses desktop-kernel. At the other hand I tend to use it anyway. There are
more xruns but not too many (about 2-3/h under serious load), it is quite
stable and forgiving(not a single case of jackd crashed or frozen) and the
best: it is the most comfortable distro I ever had. Listening to
youtube-videos or using any sound-source imaginable while Ardour is up and
running whithout even the need to think about how this happens is kind of
nice methinks ;-)
______________________________**_________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@lists.**linuxaudio.org<Linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org>
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/**listinfo/linux-audio-user<http://lists.lin…
______________________________**_________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@lists.**linuxaudio.org<Linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org>
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/**listinfo/linux-audio-user<http://lists.lin…
10:06 p.m.
On 01/09/2012 03:24 PM, Moshe Werner wrote:
Hi everyone,
after many years of studio work using the openSuse distro with the
kernel-rt from Jan Engelhard it seems that he no longer continues his great
work on rt kernels.
Being more on the recording engineer side of things and not a Linux expert
(user yes, expert no) I really fret at the thought of patching and
compiling my own kernel package.
I would like to hear your opinions on what distro is solid for audio work
and has a reliable rt kernel.
Also I would appreciate if you could explain the degree of difficulty and
learning curve of the specific distro.
My system:
Intel i7 950
Gigabyte motherboard
6 Gb ram
Rme HDSP 9652 audio interface
Appreciate your answers.
Moshe
P.S. I tried to use Ubuntu on the same machine I use openSuse 11.2 on and
got pretty bad results regarding latency and x runs on jack 2.
Hello Moshe,
Ubuntu 10.04 here with the Tango Studio real-time kernel. Latency-wise I
can go as low as the soundcard allows. If I have any xruns that
shouldn't be there I search just as long until it's solved. I still
prefer Ubuntu because it is one of the biggest distro's and that comes
with some advantages. I'm also very fond of the PPA system (Personal
Package Archives) and that Ubuntu is akin of Debian. I've used Fedora
and Mandriva (both RPM based) for a long time but prefer the Debian way
for a lot of things (packaging, filesystem layout). Also Ubuntu LTS
releases just work, at least, in my experience. And they're stable,
especially after the first point release (10.04 is at 10.04.3 now).
I'm also dabbling with Arch at the moment. I like it, it was a lot like
coming home but Arch also has some major drawbacks. The packaging system
is a huge security flaw, especially when you use AUR. Anyone can upload
anything (this is possible with Ubuntu PPA's too but it's a lot harder).
Other than that AUR is simply amazing, compared to Debian/Ubuntu
packaging is a breeze. Other thing are the rough edges. Ubuntu is
polished, especially when it comes to the desktop experience. I've come
to appreciate that through the years so I had a rough time getting font
rendering right for instance, and it still doesn't look and feel like on
my Ubuntu install. But Arch does have its pros. It's a rolling release
so you only have to install it once and then you're good to go for years
to come. This will also ensure that you're always running a pretty up to
date system. Which could also be a disadvantage. I'm a Jack1 user for
instance but also a seq24 user and seq24 doesn't work with Jack
transport with versions > 0.118.x. So 0.121.x that is in Arch at the
moment doesn't fly for me. The biggest pros for me are the
configurability and that everything is so well documented. I LOVE
opening a terminal on Arch and configure stuff that way because it's so
easy and fun.
I'm not very fond of specialized multimedia/audio distro's. I want to
configure a system the way I want, most of the distro's do things a
different way or just wrong in my opinion. Also most of these distro's
are driven by incredibly small communities or simply just one person.
Continuity is not assured. I do check them every now and then and cherry
pick the good stuff and integrate it on my own system. If I'd have to
choose a multimedia distro though I would most certainly choose AVLinux,
closely followed by Tango Studio. GMaq and Jof are simply very
knowledgable guys and listen well to what users have to say.
In your case I think Arch might be a bit too much expert. If you're
coming from OpenSuSE you might want to try Fedora with the CCRMA repo or
give Ubuntu another try, it is a Linux flavour after all so Jack should
be able to run with acceptable latencies. Or stick with OpenSuSE and
hope someone is willing to take over maintaining a real-time kernel.
Best,
Jeremy
11:01 p.m.
Wow!
Thank you for your knowledgeable inputs!
It indeed seems that the openSuse distro is going into the direction of
usual office use, too bad cause I already got accustomed to it.
Will look into the options you listed. (Kxstudio probably try it out with
Arch, or Tango studio)
Something little OT, but what exactly is the difference between
Windows/Mac, where one doesn't need an rt kernel to run realtime processes,
and Linux which needs one?
Please excuse my ignorance for as I said I'm more the audio guy than
computer guy.
Really appreciate your opinions!
Moshe
On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 11:06 PM, Jeremy Jongepier <jeremy(a)autostatic.com>wrote;wrote:
On 01/09/2012 03:24 PM, Moshe Werner wrote:
Hi everyone,
after many years of studio work using the openSuse distro with the
kernel-rt from Jan Engelhard it seems that he no longer continues his
great
work on rt kernels.
Being more on the recording engineer side of things and not a Linux expert
(user yes, expert no) I really fret at the thought of patching and
compiling my own kernel package.
I would like to hear your opinions on what distro is solid for audio work
and has a reliable rt kernel.
Also I would appreciate if you could explain the degree of difficulty and
learning curve of the specific distro.
My system:
Intel i7 950
Gigabyte motherboard
6 Gb ram
Rme HDSP 9652 audio interface
Appreciate your answers.
Moshe
P.S. I tried to use Ubuntu on the same machine I use openSuse 11.2 on and
got pretty bad results regarding latency and x runs on jack 2.
Hello Moshe,
Ubuntu 10.04 here with the Tango Studio real-time kernel. Latency-wise I
can go as low as the soundcard allows. If I have any xruns that shouldn't
be there I search just as long until it's solved. I still prefer Ubuntu
because it is one of the biggest distro's and that comes with some
advantages. I'm also very fond of the PPA system (Personal Package
Archives) and that Ubuntu is akin of Debian. I've used Fedora and Mandriva
(both RPM based) for a long time but prefer the Debian way for a lot of
things (packaging, filesystem layout). Also Ubuntu LTS releases just work,
at least, in my experience. And they're stable, especially after the first
point release (10.04 is at 10.04.3 now).
I'm also dabbling with Arch at the moment. I like it, it was a lot like
coming home but Arch also has some major drawbacks. The packaging system is
a huge security flaw, especially when you use AUR. Anyone can upload
anything (this is possible with Ubuntu PPA's too but it's a lot harder).
Other than that AUR is simply amazing, compared to Debian/Ubuntu packaging
is a breeze. Other thing are the rough edges. Ubuntu is polished,
especially when it comes to the desktop experience. I've come to appreciate
that through the years so I had a rough time getting font rendering right
for instance, and it still doesn't look and feel like on my Ubuntu install.
But Arch does have its pros. It's a rolling release so you only have to
install it once and then you're good to go for years to come. This will
also ensure that you're always running a pretty up to date system. Which
could also be a disadvantage. I'm a Jack1 user for instance but also a
seq24 user and seq24 doesn't work with Jack transport with versions >
0.118.x. So 0.121.x that is in Arch at the moment doesn't fly for me. The
biggest pros for me are the configurability and that everything is so well
documented. I LOVE opening a terminal on Arch and configure stuff that way
because it's so easy and fun.
I'm not very fond of specialized multimedia/audio distro's. I want to
configure a system the way I want, most of the distro's do things a
different way or just wrong in my opinion. Also most of these distro's are
driven by incredibly small communities or simply just one person.
Continuity is not assured. I do check them every now and then and cherry
pick the good stuff and integrate it on my own system. If I'd have to
choose a multimedia distro though I would most certainly choose AVLinux,
closely followed by Tango Studio. GMaq and Jof are simply very knowledgable
guys and listen well to what users have to say.
In your case I think Arch might be a bit too much expert. If you're coming
from OpenSuSE you might want to try Fedora with the CCRMA repo or give
Ubuntu another try, it is a Linux flavour after all so Jack should be able
to run with acceptable latencies. Or stick with OpenSuSE and hope someone
is willing to take over maintaining a real-time kernel.
Best,
Jeremy
______________________________**_________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@lists.**linuxaudio.org<Linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org>
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/**listinfo/linux-audio-user<http://lists.lin…
10 Jan
10 Jan
1:07 a.m.
Hi Moshe,
The same here Ubuntu 10.04 with kernel 2.6.39 manually compiled, with
THREADIRQS enabled (which is the most important part of the RT kernel,
according to what I've learned here and read over there in the grid)
I can get 5.8 ms latency without xruns BUT having the WIFI disabled (no
IRQs are shared but it still cause a lot of xruns....)
I'm not a kernel expert, but I can say that you don't need to use a RT
Kernel in order to have a low latency. [1]
For instance, if you decide to give a try with Ubuntu, you can use the
default kernel and configure jack to use RT scheduling [2].
If that kernel is not suitable for you (I mean, you get a lot of xruns),
then you can use the PREEMPT or RT Kernels that are included in the
Official Ubuntu Repositories (which are configured in the apt sources
automatically) and see how it works before going to a manual kernel
compillation.
[1] http://jackaudio.org/realtime_vs_realtime_kernel
[2] http://jackaudio.org/linux_rt_config
Good luck and have fun.
2012/1/9 Moshe Werner <moshwe(a)gmail.com>
Wow!
Thank you for your knowledgeable inputs!
It indeed seems that the openSuse distro is going into the direction of
usual office use, too bad cause I already got accustomed to it.
Will look into the options you listed. (Kxstudio probably try it out with
Arch, or Tango studio)
Something little OT, but what exactly is the difference between
Windows/Mac, where one doesn't need an rt kernel to run realtime processes,
and Linux which needs one?
Please excuse my ignorance for as I said I'm more the audio guy than
computer guy.
Really appreciate your opinions!
Moshe
On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 11:06 PM, Jeremy Jongepier <jeremy(a)autostatic.com>wrote;wrote:
On 01/09/2012 03:24 PM, Moshe Werner wrote:
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
Hi everyone,
after many years of studio work using the openSuse distro with the
kernel-rt from Jan Engelhard it seems that he no longer continues his
great
work on rt kernels.
Being more on the recording engineer side of things and not a Linux
expert
(user yes, expert no) I really fret at the thought of patching and
compiling my own kernel package.
I would like to hear your opinions on what distro is solid for audio work
and has a reliable rt kernel.
Also I would appreciate if you could explain the degree of difficulty and
learning curve of the specific distro.
My system:
Intel i7 950
Gigabyte motherboard
6 Gb ram
Rme HDSP 9652 audio interface
Appreciate your answers.
Moshe
P.S. I tried to use Ubuntu on the same machine I use openSuse 11.2 on and
got pretty bad results regarding latency and x runs on jack 2.
Hello Moshe,
Ubuntu 10.04 here with the Tango Studio real-time kernel. Latency-wise I
can go as low as the soundcard allows. If I have any xruns that shouldn't
be there I search just as long until it's solved. I still prefer Ubuntu
because it is one of the biggest distro's and that comes with some
advantages. I'm also very fond of the PPA system (Personal Package
Archives) and that Ubuntu is akin of Debian. I've used Fedora and Mandriva
(both RPM based) for a long time but prefer the Debian way for a lot of
things (packaging, filesystem layout). Also Ubuntu LTS releases just work,
at least, in my experience. And they're stable, especially after the first
point release (10.04 is at 10.04.3 now).
I'm also dabbling with Arch at the moment. I like it, it was a lot like
coming home but Arch also has some major drawbacks. The packaging system is
a huge security flaw, especially when you use AUR. Anyone can upload
anything (this is possible with Ubuntu PPA's too but it's a lot harder).
Other than that AUR is simply amazing, compared to Debian/Ubuntu packaging
is a breeze. Other thing are the rough edges. Ubuntu is polished,
especially when it comes to the desktop experience. I've come to appreciate
that through the years so I had a rough time getting font rendering right
for instance, and it still doesn't look and feel like on my Ubuntu install.
But Arch does have its pros. It's a rolling release so you only have to
install it once and then you're good to go for years to come. This will
also ensure that you're always running a pretty up to date system. Which
could also be a disadvantage. I'm a Jack1 user for instance but also a
seq24 user and seq24 doesn't work with Jack transport with versions >
0.118.x. So 0.121.x that is in Arch at the moment doesn't fly for me. The
biggest pros for me are the configurability and that everything is so well
documented. I LOVE opening a terminal on Arch and configure stuff that way
because it's so easy and fun.
I'm not very fond of specialized multimedia/audio distro's. I want to
configure a system the way I want, most of the distro's do things a
different way or just wrong in my opinion. Also most of these distro's are
driven by incredibly small communities or simply just one person.
Continuity is not assured. I do check them every now and then and cherry
pick the good stuff and integrate it on my own system. If I'd have to
choose a multimedia distro though I would most certainly choose AVLinux,
closely followed by Tango Studio. GMaq and Jof are simply very knowledgable
guys and listen well to what users have to say.
In your case I think Arch might be a bit too much expert. If you're
coming from OpenSuSE you might want to try Fedora with the CCRMA repo or
give Ubuntu another try, it is a Linux flavour after all so Jack should be
able to run with acceptable latencies. Or stick with OpenSuSE and hope
someone is willing to take over maintaining a real-time kernel.
Best,
Jeremy
______________________________**_________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@lists.**linuxaudio.org<Linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org>
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/**listinfo/linux-audio-user<http://lists.lin…
9:14 a.m.
On 01/10/12 01:07, Diego Simak wrote:
If that kernel is not suitable for you (I mean, you
get a lot of xruns),
then you can use the PREEMPT or RT Kernels that are included in the
Official Ubuntu Repositories (which are configured in the apt sources
automatically) and see how it works before going to a manual kernel
compillation.
10.04 does have a real-time kernel in the repos, 2.6.31-rt. But the
2.6.33 real-time kernel from Tango Studio is superior. At least, I
didn't have a lot of success with the real-time kernel from the Ubuntu
repos while the one from Tango Studios is still going strong.
Later versions of Ubuntu do not have a real-time kernel available
anymore, only via PPA's. But indeed, with the whole IRQ threading thing
being merged in the mainline kernel you could ask yourself, do I really
need a real-time kernel. In my case I dare to say yes, haven't done any
A-B testing with a low-latency kernel but I get the feeling that I can
get the most out of a real-time kernel. That's why I'm thinking about
switching to Arch but unfortunately the 3.0 real-time kernel is not
stable enough (it crashes on any plug-in that uses the Juce framework,
need to file a bugreport).
Best,
Jeremy
3:43 p.m.
On Tuesday, January 10, 2012 09:28:12 AM Jeremy Jongepier did opine:
On 01/10/12 01:07, Diego Simak wrote:
This isn't exactly realtime, where latencies measured in small numbers of
microseconds count big time. Over on the emc list, where we depend on
being able to feed stepper motors with very steady heartbeats to keep them
running smoothly at high speeds, we have found a motherboard with extremely
low latencies, like 7 microseconds without resorting to the use of the
isolcpus= boot param, and with it, figures in the 5 microsecond range have
been seen.
This is on a dirt cheap intel D-525 motherboard, with a dual core 1.8 ghz
atom cpu on it, doesn't even need a fan! I just bought the whole box with
2Gb of ram, a 250Gb Sata HD and a sata dvd writer for $246 delivered to my
front deck.
Because emc is a special build, running only on an RTAI enabled kernel, we
are stuck with a 2.6.32 kernel that comes with ubuntu-10.04 LTS, but I just
saw where next LTS is already committed to a 3.2 kernel.
If that kernel is not suitable for you (I mean,
you get a lot of
xruns), then you can use the PREEMPT or RT Kernels that are included
in the Official Ubuntu Repositories (which are configured in the apt
sources automatically) and see how it works before going to a manual
kernel compillation.
10.04 does have a real-time kernel in the repos, 2.6.31-rt. But the
2.6.33 real-time kernel from Tango Studio is superior. At least, I
didn't have a lot of success with the real-time kernel from the Ubuntu
repos while the one from Tango Studios is still going strong.
Later versions of Ubuntu do not have a real-time kernel available
anymore, only via PPA's. But indeed, with the whole IRQ threading thing
being merged in the mainline kernel you could ask yourself, do I really
need a real-time kernel. In my case I dare to say yes, haven't done any
A-B testing with a low-latency kernel but I get the feeling that I can
get the most out of a real-time kernel. That's why I'm thinking about
switching to Arch but unfortunately the 3.0 real-time kernel is not
stable enough (it crashes on any plug-in that uses the Juce framework,
need to file a bugreport).
Get it filed then. The quicker its filed, the quicker it will get fixed
(if its not Juce's fault that is.)
Best,
Jeremy
Cheers, Gene
--
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
My web page: <http://coyoteden.dyndns-free.com:85/gene>
There's got to be more to life than compile-and-go.
4:13 p.m.
On 01/10/12 15:43, gene heskett wrote:
Yup, will do, tonight. I don't have any logs at hand. It's about a 64bit
system though and right now at #opensourcemusicians there are already
some people who have no issues with a 32bit system.
Best,
Jeremy
On Tuesday, January 10, 2012 09:28:12 AM Jeremy
Jongepier did opine:
Hello Gene,
I know, I meant real-time as in patched with the RT patchset.
On 01/10/12 01:07, Diego Simak wrote:
This isn't exactly realtime, where latencies measured in small numbers of
microseconds count big time. If that kernel is not suitable for you (I mean,
you get a lot of
xruns), then you can use the PREEMPT or RT Kernels that are included
in the Official Ubuntu Repositories (which are configured in the apt
sources automatically) and see how it works before going to a manual
kernel compillation.
10.04 does have a real-time kernel in the repos, 2.6.31-rt. But the
2.6.33 real-time kernel from Tango Studio is superior. At least, I
didn't have a lot of success with the real-time kernel from the Ubuntu
repos while the one from Tango Studios is still going strong.
Later versions of Ubuntu do not have a real-time kernel available
anymore, only via PPA's. But indeed, with the whole IRQ threading thing
being merged in the mainline kernel you could ask yourself, do I really
need a real-time kernel. In my case I dare to say yes, haven't done any
A-B testing with a low-latency kernel but I get the feeling that I can
get the most out of a real-time kernel. That's why I'm thinking about
switching to Arch but unfortunately the 3.0 real-time kernel is not
stable enough (it crashes on any plug-in that uses the Juce framework,
need to file a bugreport).
Get it filed then. The quicker its filed, the quicker it will get fixed
(if its not Juce's fault that is.)
Best,
Jeremy
Cheers, Gene
10:02 a.m.
On 01/09/12 23:01, Moshe Werner wrote:
Something little OT, but what exactly is the
difference between
Windows/Mac, where one doesn't need an rt kernel to run realtime processes,
and Linux which needs one?
Hello Moshe,
On Linux you don't need a real-time kernel to run real-time processes
either.
Best,
Jeremy
1:44 p.m.
On 1/10/12, Jeremy Jongepier <jeremy(a)autostatic.com> wrote:
On 01/09/12 23:01, Moshe Werner wrote:
to clarify a little more:
1) on linux, **access** to realtime scheduling is not necessarily
granted to normal users, unlike the situation on windows and OS X. on
any sane linux system, this is easy to alter. on any sane linux system
that targets music/pro-audio/media production, its already set up that
way and so there is no difference between these systems and windows or
OS X in this regard.
2) the PREEMPT_RT kernel is substantially "more realtime" than any
version of windows or OS X that you could lay your hands on. its more
like an actual realtime OS than the kind of general purpose OS that
regular Linux, Windows and OS X represent, though without actually
being suitable (quite) for "hard RT" tasks.
Something little OT, but what exactly is the
difference between
Windows/Mac, where one doesn't need an rt kernel to run realtime
processes,
and Linux which needs one?
Hello Moshe,
On Linux you don't need a real-time kernel to run real-time processes
either. 
8:17 p.m.
Le 10/01/2012 13:44, Paul Davis a écrit :
On 1/10/12, Jeremy
Jongepier<jeremy(a)autostatic.com> wrote:
To add, even if it's not IMHO something good, (clearly it's a shameful
job) :
Linux machines are the standard for "high frequency trading"
Almost just because they can really go RT
On 01/09/12 23:01, Moshe Werner wrote:
to clarify a little more:
1) on linux, **access** to realtime scheduling is not necessarily
granted to normal users, unlike the situation on windows and OS X. on
any sane linux system, this is easy to alter. on any sane linux system
that targets music/pro-audio/media production, its already set up that
way and so there is no difference between these systems and windows or
OS X in this regard.
2) the PREEMPT_RT kernel is substantially "more realtime" than any
version of windows or OS X that you could lay your hands on. its more
like an actual realtime OS than the kind of general purpose OS that
regular Linux, Windows and OS X represent, though without actually
being suitable (quite) for "hard RT" tasks.
Something little OT, but what exactly is the
difference between
Windows/Mac, where one doesn't need an rt kernel to run realtime
processes,
and Linux which needs one?
Hello Moshe,
On Linux you don't need a real-time kernel to run real-time processes
either.
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
11 Jan
11 Jan
2:11 p.m.
Oh I see.
Thanks for the clarification and again please excuse my ignorance int the
field of computer technology :).
Just to get it right, some of you said that I don't need a real time
kernel? How that? Are there people on this list who do serious audio work
and do NOT use an rt-kernel? If so is it really recomended doing so?
Thanks again to you all!
Love Linux and the community...
Moshe
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 9:17 PM, fred <f.rech(a)yahoo.fr> wrote:
Le 10/01/2012 13:44, Paul Davis a écrit :
On 1/10/12, Jeremy
Jongepier<jeremy@autostatic.**com<jeremy@autostatic.com>>
wrote:
To add, even if it's not IMHO something good, (clearly it's a shameful
job) :
Linux machines are the standard for "high frequency trading"
Almost just because they can really go RT
______________________________**_________________
On 01/09/12 23:01, Moshe Werner wrote:
to clarify a little more:
1) on linux, **access** to realtime scheduling is not necessarily
granted to normal users, unlike the situation on windows and OS X. on
any sane linux system, this is easy to alter. on any sane linux system
that targets music/pro-audio/media production, its already set up that
way and so there is no difference between these systems and windows or
OS X in this regard.
2) the PREEMPT_RT kernel is substantially "more realtime" than any
version of windows or OS X that you could lay your hands on. its more
like an actual realtime OS than the kind of general purpose OS that
regular Linux, Windows and OS X represent, though without actually
being suitable (quite) for "hard RT" tasks.
Something little OT, but what exactly is the
difference between
Windows/Mac, where one doesn't need an rt kernel to run realtime
processes,
and Linux which needs one?
Hello Moshe,
On Linux you don't need a real-time kernel to run real-time processes
either.
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@lists.**linuxaudio.org<Linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org>
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/**listinfo/linux-audio-user<http://lists.lin…
______________________________**_________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@lists.**linuxaudio.org<Linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org>
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/**listinfo/linux-audio-user<http://lists.lin…
2:39 p.m.
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 8:11 AM, Moshe Werner <moshwe(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks for the clarification and again please excuse
my ignorance int the
field of computer technology :).
Just to get it right, some of you said that I don't need a real time kernel?
How that? Are there people on this list who do serious audio work and do NOT
use an rt-kernel? If so is it really recomended doing so?
I use the stock Ubuntu Studio 11.04 kernel, which supports real-time
scheduling, with Jack, Rosegarden, Ardour, etc., and it all works
fine, no realtime kernel required. I'm not recording live audio,
however, but mostly MIDI sequencing with samplers but with occasional
recording of live guitar and bass. Using RME HDSP Multiface II
hardware also, with ADAT and SPDIF.
--
Brett W. McCoy -- http://www.brettwmccoy.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"In the rhythm of music a secret is hidden; If I were to divulge it,
it would overturn the world."
-- Jelaleddin Rumi
3:55 p.m.
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 03:11:53PM +0200, Moshe Werner wrote:
Just to get it right, some of you said that I
don't need a real time
kernel? How that? Are there people on this list who do serious audio work
and do NOT use an rt-kernel? If so is it really recomended doing so?
As mentioned before, the normal Linux kernel already has RT capabilities,
and recently a large part of the additional RT patches have been moved
into the standard kernel. The result is that you need a patched kernel
only if you want very low latencies. Here everything (and that means
some heavvy audio processing) is done using the standard kernel, with
an audio period size of 256 frames. I never experienced any problem
with it.
Ciao,
--
FA
Vor uns liegt ein weites Tal, die Sonne scheint - ein Glitzerstrahl.
12 Jan
12 Jan
5:15 p.m.
Hello,
On 10/01/2012 13:44, Paul Davis wrote:
2) the PREEMPT_RT kernel is substantially "more
realtime" than any
version of windows or OS X that you could lay your hands on. its more
like an actual realtime OS than the kind of general purpose OS that
regular Linux, Windows and OS X represent, though without actually
being suitable (quite) for "hard RT" tasks.
if someone needs such a kernel for debian, they are available at
http://pengutronix.de/software/linux-rt/debian_en.html
hth,
tee
13 Jan
13 Jan
5:59 a.m.
On 01/12/2012 06:15 AM, tee wrote:
Hello,
On 10/01/2012 13:44, Paul Davis wrote:
I tried that once. Booting it just led to panics. I decided it didn't
like my hardware for whatever reason.
I'm doing ok with the stock Debian Sid kernel, but I don't need latency
as low as others might.
--
David
gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com
authenticity, honesty, community
2) the PREEMPT_RT kernel is substantially
"more realtime" than any
version of windows or OS X that you could lay your hands on. its more
like an actual realtime OS than the kind of general purpose OS that
regular Linux, Windows and OS X represent, though without actually
being suitable (quite) for "hard RT" tasks.
if someone needs such a kernel for debian, they are available at
http://pengutronix.de/software/linux-rt/debian_en.html
8:44 a.m.
2012/1/13 david <gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com>
On 01/12/2012 06:15 AM, tee wrote:
Just to spread some KISS :-)
Compiling a debian RT kernel is quite straightforward.
Download debian sources or vanilla ones from kernel.org
Patch according to your release (
http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/projects/rt/ )
Run `make oldconfig` inside the sources dir, you will probably be asked
about configs in the newer kernel not found in .config-YOUR_RUNNING_KERNEL
Then follow the common workflow, run `make menuconfig`, at least change
only the PREEMPT opt and seti it to 'complete preemption'.
Create your linux-image debian package with make-kpkg (
http://www.debian.org/releases/stable/i386/ch08s06.html.en)
If your running kernel works this one will too 99.9%
my 0.02€
regards
-r
Hello,
On 10/01/2012 13:44, Paul Davis wrote:
I tried that once. Booting it just led to panics. I decided it didn't like
my hardware for whatever reason.
I'm doing ok with the stock Debian Sid kernel, but I don't need latency as
low as others might. 2) the PREEMPT_RT kernel is substantially
"more realtime" than any
version of windows or OS X that you could lay your hands on. its more
like an actual realtime OS than the kind of general purpose OS that
regular Linux, Windows and OS X represent, though without actually
being suitable (quite) for "hard RT" tasks.
if someone needs such a kernel for debian, they are available at
http://pengutronix.de/**software/linux-rt/debian_en.**html<http://pengut…
9:43 a.m.
On 01/12/2012 09:44 PM, Raffaele Morelli wrote:
2012/1/13 david <gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com
<mailto:gnome@hawaii.rr.com>>
On 01/12/2012 06:15 AM, tee wrote:
Hello,
On 10/01/2012 13:44, Paul Davis wrote:
2) the PREEMPT_RT kernel is substantially "more realtime"
than any
version of windows or OS X that you could lay your hands on.
its more
like an actual realtime OS than the kind of general purpose
OS that
regular Linux, Windows and OS X represent, though without
actually
being suitable (quite) for "hard RT" tasks.
if someone needs such a kernel for debian, they are available at
http://pengutronix.de/ software/linux-rt/debian_en. html
<http://pengutronix.de/software/linux-rt/debian_en.html>
I tried that once. Booting it just led to panics. I decided it
didn't like my hardware for whatever reason.
I'm doing ok with the stock Debian Sid kernel, but I don't need
latency as low as others might.
Just to spread some KISS :-)
Compiling a debian RT kernel is quite straightforward.
Download debian sources or vanilla ones from kernel.org <http://kernel.org>
Patch according to your release (
http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/projects/rt/ )
Run `make oldconfig` inside the sources dir, you will probably be asked
about configs in the newer kernel not found in .config-YOUR_RUNNING_KERNEL
Then follow the common workflow, run `make menuconfig`, at least change
only the PREEMPT opt and seti it to 'complete preemption'.
Create your linux-image debian package with make-kpkg
(http://www.debian.org/releases/stable/i386/ch08s06.html.en)
If your running kernel works this one will too 99.9%
my 0.02€
regards
-r
Thanks, but I don't need to compile a kernel to meet my RT needs.
--
David
gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com
authenticity, honesty, community
14 Jan
14 Jan
11:37 a.m.
Il 13/01/2012 08:44, Raffaele Morelli ha scritto:
2012/1/13 david <gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com
<mailto:gnome@hawaii.rr.com>>
On 01/12/2012 06:15 AM, tee wrote:
Hello,
On 10/01/2012 13:44, Paul Davis wrote:
2) the PREEMPT_RT kernel is substantially "more realtime"
than any
version of windows or OS X that you could lay your hands
on. its more
like an actual realtime OS than the kind of general
purpose OS that
regular Linux, Windows and OS X represent, though without
actually
being suitable (quite) for "hard RT" tasks.
if someone needs such a kernel for debian, they are available at
http://pengutronix.de/software/linux-rt/debian_en.html
I tried that once. Booting it just led to panics. I decided it
didn't like my hardware for whatever reason.
I'm doing ok with the stock Debian Sid kernel, but I don't need
latency as low as others might.
Just to spread some KISS :-)
Compiling a debian RT kernel is quite straightforward.
Download debian sources or vanilla ones from kernel.org
<http://kernel.org>
Patch according to your release (
http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/projects/rt/ )
Run `make oldconfig` inside the sources dir, you will probably be
asked about configs in the newer kernel not found in
.config-YOUR_RUNNING_KERNEL
Then follow the common workflow, run `make menuconfig`, at least
change only the PREEMPT opt and seti it to 'complete preemption'.
Create your linux-image debian package with make-kpkg
(http://www.debian.org/releases/stable/i386/ch08s06.html.en)
If your running kernel works this one will too 99.9%
my 0.02€
regards
-r
Hi, I'm using Debian Wheezy.
I'm not comfortable in building kernel on my own, so I try Liquorix,
that hasn't the RT patch, but is built with the kernel system timer set
to 1000 hz (instead of the standard 250 hz), and that seems to improve
the midi timing. (I read this somewhere in Rosengarden site, can anyone
confirm this?)
I work mostly with midi and samplers, so with rtirq and Liquorix it
seems enough for me.
Are there better kernels for audio/midi operations in Wheezy?
--
Nicola
20 Feb
20 Feb
8:37 a.m.
Hi all!
Just wanted to let you know what we decided.
After much thought put into this we decided to take the plunge into the
Arch Linux world.
We just liked the idea of tailoring our own system that answers to all our
needs, and felt that with Arch this would be the most simple approach.
I wanted to thank you all for your inputs and very interesting posts!
Warm regards,
Moshe
On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 12:37 PM, Nicola Pandini
<nicola.pandini(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
**
Il 13/01/2012 08:44, Raffaele Morelli ha scritto:
2012/1/13 david <gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com>
On 01/12/2012 06:15 AM, tee wrote:
Just to spread some KISS :-)
Compiling a debian RT kernel is quite straightforward.
Download debian sources or vanilla ones from kernel.org
Patch according to your release (
http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/projects/rt/ )
Run `make oldconfig` inside the sources dir, you will probably be asked
about configs in the newer kernel not found in .config-YOUR_RUNNING_KERNEL
Then follow the common workflow, run `make menuconfig`, at least change
only the PREEMPT opt and seti it to 'complete preemption'.
Create your linux-image debian package with make-kpkg (
http://www.debian.org/releases/stable/i386/ch08s06.html.en)
If your running kernel works this one will too 99.9%
my 0.02€
regards
-r
Hi, I'm using Debian Wheezy.
I'm not comfortable in building kernel on my own, so I try Liquorix, that
hasn't the RT patch, but is built with the kernel system timer set to 1000
hz (instead of the standard 250 hz), and that seems to improve the midi
timing. (I read this somewhere in Rosengarden site, can anyone confirm
this?)
I work mostly with midi and samplers, so with rtirq and Liquorix it seems
enough for me.
Are there better kernels for audio/midi operations in Wheezy?
--
Nicola
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
Hello,
On 10/01/2012 13:44, Paul Davis wrote:
I tried that once. Booting it just led to panics. I decided it didn't
like my hardware for whatever reason.
I'm doing ok with the stock Debian Sid kernel, but I don't need latency
as low as others might. 2) the PREEMPT_RT kernel is substantially
"more realtime" than any
version of windows or OS X that you could lay your hands on. its more
like an actual realtime OS than the kind of general purpose OS that
regular Linux, Windows and OS X represent, though without actually
being suitable (quite) for "hard RT" tasks.
if someone needs such a kernel for debian, they are available at
http://pengutronix.de/software/linux-rt/debian_en.html
10 Jan
10 Jan
1:47 a.m.
On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 11:24 PM, Moshe Werner <moshwe(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I would like to hear your opinions on what distro is solid for audio work
and has a reliable rt kernel.
Also I would appreciate if you could explain the degree of difficulty and
learning curve of the specific distro.
I used openSuse for a few years, from the early JAD days up to version
11.3, when the situation with sporadic updates to audio apps finally
convinced me to shop around. After trying Ubuntu for a while, I finally
settled on Arch. There is a learning curve, mostly due to differences in
package management and Arch's emphasis on centralized text based config
files, but for me the transition made much easier by the documentation in
the wiki, and the forums are generally very helpful and active. There are
packages for the RT kernel available or you can compile from very easy to
follow build scripts. The rolling release is great and most audio apps are
available as build scripts. This has allowed me to keep my own repo of
packages which I use to keep a consistent installation environment across
three machines, while I run Ubuntu on my netbook for convenience sake.
Short story: happy ex-openSuse current Arch user here.
-m
2:05 a.m.
Indamixx Pro is on sale for only $29.00 with Full versions of energy XT,
ArdourXchange, LinuxDSP.
Use coupon code 'sale' and save $170.00
http://indamixx.com/shop-120.html
Thank you
Ronald Stewart
Indamixx
On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 7:47 PM, michael noble <looplog(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 11:24 PM, Moshe Werner
<moshwe(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I would like to hear your opinions on what distro is solid for audio work
and has a reliable rt kernel.
Also I would appreciate if you could explain the degree of difficulty and
learning curve of the specific distro.
I used openSuse for a few years, from the early JAD days up to version
11.3, when the situation with sporadic updates to audio apps finally
convinced me to shop around. After trying Ubuntu for a while, I finally
settled on Arch. There is a learning curve, mostly due to differences in
package management and Arch's emphasis on centralized text based config
files, but for me the transition made much easier by the documentation in
the wiki, and the forums are generally very helpful and active. There are
packages for the RT kernel available or you can compile from very easy to
follow build scripts. The rolling release is great and most audio apps are
available as build scripts. This has allowed me to keep my own repo of
packages which I use to keep a consistent installation environment across
three machines, while I run Ubuntu on my netbook for convenience sake.
Short story: happy ex-openSuse current Arch user here.
-m
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
11 Jan
11 Jan
3:43 p.m.
2012/1/9 Moshe Werner <moshwe(a)gmail.com>
Hi everyone,
after many years of studio work using the openSuse distro with the
kernel-rt from Jan Engelhard it seems that he no longer continues his great
work on rt kernels.
Being more on the recording engineer side of things and not a Linux expert
(user yes, expert no) I really fret at the thought of patching and
compiling my own kernel package.
I would like to hear your opinions on what distro is solid for audio work
and has a reliable rt kernel.
Also I would appreciate if you could explain the degree of difficulty and
learning curve of the specific distro.
My system:
Intel i7 950
Gigabyte motherboard
6 Gb ram
Rme HDSP 9652 audio interface
Appreciate your answers.
Moshe
P.S. I tried to use Ubuntu on the same machine I use openSuse 11.2 on and
got pretty bad results regarding latency and x runs on jack 2.
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
Hi Moshe.
Given that I'm involved in the team, I would say give a try to Musix [1].
We're now working on version 3 beta, so you may want to try Musix 2
downloading the live CD or the USB version (this way you can have a look
without installing anything on your computer) until v3 is published.
I have to tell you that Musix v3 it's going to be a great jump forward
compared to v2.
Musix always put an eye on non experienced users, and it's of course RT an
all those great things that linux distros have (actually Musix is based on
Debian)
To add some more choice to those great responses here in this thread, a
would mention KXstudio[2]. I liked it when I tested some time ago, nice and
well finished.
Regards
[1] http://www.musix.org.ar/en/index.html
* download Musix 2 and others: http://www.musix.org.ar/en/download.html
[2] http://kxstudio.sourceforge.net/Main_Page
--
Carlos sanchiavedraz
* Musix GNU+Linux
http://www.musix.es
3:47 p.m.
On 01/11/2012 09:37 AM, Carlos sanchiavedraz wrote:
... I would say give a try to Musix ...
Agree++.
I have to tell you that Musix v3 it's going to be
a great jump forward
compared to v2.
That's good news, Carlos, I look forward to testing the new version.
To add some more choice to those great responses here in this thread,
a would mention KXstudio[2]. I liked it when I tested some time ago,
nice and well finished.
Gotta get to it. falkTX has done some great work on his Linux audio
tools too.
Best,
dp
12 Jan
12 Jan
9:11 a.m.
2012/1/11 Dave Phillips <dlphillips(a)woh.rr.com>
Yes, not only with KXstudio itself, but with some apps he did that are
included in that I like. Since I tested them I'm interested, and maybe some
(not so far day) I hope to put in contact with him.
On 01/11/2012 09:37 AM, Carlos sanchiavedraz wrote:
... I would say give a try to Musix ...
Agree++.
I have to tell you that Musix v3 it's going to be a great jump forward
> compared to v2.
That's good news, Carlos, I look forward to testing the new version.
We would really love to have you're feedback, and this goes of course for
all dear LAU folks. Our resources are limited but we work as fast as we can.
I will post here information as soon as possible.
To add some more choice to those great responses
here in this thread, a
would mention KXstudio[2]. I liked it when I tested some time ago, nice and
well finished.
Gotta get to it. falkTX has done some great work on his Linux audio tools
too.
Best,
dp
______________________________**_________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@lists.**linuxaudio.org<Linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org>
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/**listinfo/linux-audio-user<http://lists.lin…
Thanks as always, Dave.
--
Carlos sanchiavedraz
* Musix GNU+Linux
http://www.musix.es
9:25 a.m.
On 01/11/2012 10:11 PM, Carlos sanchiavedraz wrote:
To add some more choice to those great
responses here in this
thread, a would mention KXstudio[2]. I liked it when I tested
some time ago, nice and well finished.
Gotta get to it. falkTX has done some great work on his Linux audio
tools too.
Yes, not only with KXstudio itself, but with some apps he did that are
included in that I like. Since I tested them I'm interested, and maybe
some (not so far day) I hope to put in contact with him.
Well, I tried KXStudio on my laptop. It requires processors with PAE,
and my laptop doesn't have such a processor.
I think it's kind of silly to use PAE. If you need that kind of address
space, forget 32-bit and just go with 64-bit.
--
David
gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com
authenticity, honesty, community
5:08 p.m.
2012/1/12 david <gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com>
On 01/11/2012 10:11 PM, Carlos sanchiavedraz wrote:
To add some more choice to those great responses here in this
I didn't knew about that issue. Curious.
--
Carlos sanchiavedraz
* Musix GNU+Linux
http://www.musix.es
thread, a would mention KXstudio[2]. I
liked it when I tested
some time ago, nice and well finished.
Gotta get to it. falkTX has done some great work on his Linux audio
tools too.
Yes, not only with KXstudio itself, but with some apps he did that are
included in that I like. Since I tested them I'm interested, and maybe
some (not so far day) I hope to put in contact with him.
Well, I tried KXStudio on my laptop. It requires processors with PAE, and
my laptop doesn't have such a processor.
I think it's kind of silly to use PAE. If you need that kind of address
space, forget 32-bit and just go with 64-bit.
--
David
gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com
authenticity, honesty, community
______________________________**_________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@lists.**linuxaudio.org<Linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org>
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/**listinfo/linux-audio-user<http://lists.lin…
7 p.m.
On 01/12/2012 06:07 AM, Carlos sanchiavedraz wrote:
2012/1/12 david <gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com <mailto:gnome@hawaii.rr.com>>
On 01/11/2012 10:11 PM, Carlos sanchiavedraz wrote:
To add some more choice to those great responses here in
this
thread, a would mention KXstudio[2]. I liked it when I
tested
some time ago, nice and well finished.
Gotta get to it. falkTX has done some great work on his
Linux audio
tools too.
Yes, not only with KXstudio itself, but with some apps he did
that are
included in that I like. Since I tested them I'm interested, and
maybe
some (not so far day) I hope to put in contact with him.
Well, I tried KXStudio on my laptop. It requires processors with
PAE, and my laptop doesn't have such a processor.
I think it's kind of silly to use PAE. If you need that kind of
address space, forget 32-bit and just go with 64-bit.
I didn't knew about that issue. Curious.
Probably most people have more modern processors than I usually to.
--
David
gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com
authenticity, honesty, community
11 Jan
11 Jan
6:05 p.m.
On 01/11/2012 04:37 AM, Carlos sanchiavedraz wrote:
2012/1/9 Moshe Werner <moshwe(a)gmail.com <mailto:moshwe@gmail.com>>
Hi everyone,
after many years of studio work using the openSuse distro with the
kernel-rt from Jan Engelhard it seems that he no longer continues
his great work on rt kernels.
Being more on the recording engineer side of things and not a Linux
expert (user yes, expert no) I really fret at the thought of
patching and compiling my own kernel package.
I would like to hear your opinions on what distro is solid for audio
work and has a reliable rt kernel.
Also I would appreciate if you could explain the degree of
difficulty and learning curve of the specific distro.
My system:
Intel i7 950
Gigabyte motherboard
6 Gb ram
Rme HDSP 9652 audio interface
Appreciate your answers.
Moshe
P.S. I tried to use Ubuntu on the same machine I use openSuse 11.2
on and got pretty bad results regarding latency and x runs on jack 2.
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user(a)lists.linuxaudio.org
<mailto:Linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org>
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
Hi Moshe.
Given that I'm involved in the team, I would say give a try to Musix
[1]. We're now working on version 3 beta, so you may want to try Musix 2
downloading the live CD or the USB version (this way you can have a look
without installing anything on your computer) until v3 is published.
I have to tell you that Musix v3 it's going to be a great jump forward
compared to v2.
Musix always put an eye on non experienced users, and it's of course RT
an all those great things that linux distros have (actually Musix is
based on Debian)
To add some more choice to those great responses here in this thread, a
would mention KXstudio[2]. I liked it when I tested some time ago, nice
and well finished.
Regards
[1] http://www.musix.org.ar/en/index.html
* download Musix 2 and others: http://www.musix.org.ar/en/download.html
[2] http://kxstudio.sourceforge.net/Main_Page
Another vote for Musix from me. I liked Musix 2 (although for some
reason it didn't like the video hardware in my audio laptop), and really
like Musix 3.
--
David
gnome(a)hawaii.rr.com
authenticity, honesty, community
12 Jan
12 Jan
9:07 p.m.
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 8:37 AM, Carlos sanchiavedraz
<csanchezgs(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I have to tell you that Musix v3 it's going to be
a great jump forward
compared to v2.
where can I get the beta? I've seen mention of Musix on this list,
but have never tried it. I'm anxious to test it out!
--
Josh Lawrence
903-490-3700
13 Jan
13 Jan
1:02 p.m.
2012/1/12 Josh Lawrence <josh(a)joshlawrence.me>
On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 8:37 AM, Carlos sanchiavedraz
<csanchezgs(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Now we're testing just the team. Next beta I'll try to put in a place we're
you all have access. I'll keep you up to date.
Thanks for your interest.
--
Carlos sanchiavedraz
* Musix GNU+Linux
http://www.musix.es
I have to tell you that Musix v3 it's going
to be a great jump forward
compared to v2.
where can I get the beta? I've seen mention of Musix on this list,
but have never tried it. I'm anxious to test it out!
--
Josh Lawrence
903-490-3700
4666
days inactive
4708
days old
linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org
38 comments
19 participants
participants (19)
-
Brett McCoy -
Carlos sanchiavedraz -
Dave Phillips -
david -
Diego Simak -
Fons Adriaensen -
fred -
gene heskett -
Hartmut Noack -
Jeremy Jongepier -
Joe Hartley -
Josh Lawrence -
michael noble -
Moshe Werner -
Nicola Pandini -
Paul Davis -
Raffaele Morelli -
Ronald Stewart -
tee