13 Jul
2004
13 Jul
'04
3:54 p.m.
2.6 on suse is also different than 2.6 fedora, because suse has a couple
of audio programmers who work to make sure their kernel works with audio,
so I can use all my audio apps out of the box with 9.2, and the 2.6
kernel, without latency problems, and without needing a kernel recompile.
On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 linux-audio-user-request(a)music.columbia.edu wrote:
Send linux-audio-user mailing list submissions to
linux-audio-user(a)music.columbia.edu
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://music.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
linux-audio-user-request(a)music.columbia.edu
You can reach the person managing the list at
linux-audio-user-owner(a)music.columbia.edu
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of linux-audio-user digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Note tuning and quantizer in audio files (Paul Winkler)
2. Re: distros (Steve Harris)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 10:51:13 -0400
From: Paul Winkler <pw_lists(a)slinkp.com>
Subject: Re: [linux-audio-user] Note tuning and quantizer in audio
files
To: A list for linux audio users <linux-audio-user(a)music.columbia.edu>
Message-ID: <20040713145112.GA2313(a)slinkp.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
In case anyone's interested, I just found an interesting
closely related thread on rec.audio.pro:
http://groups.google.com/groups?th=e1a8a02e65f3da0c&seekm=jmtpe0t9ru3q4…
--
Paul Winkler
http://www.slinkp.com
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 16:02:53 +0100
From: Steve Harris <S.W.Harris(a)ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: [linux-audio-user] distros
To: A list for linux audio users <linux-audio-user(a)music.columbia.edu>
Message-ID: <20040713150253.GH31552(a)login.ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 03:50:52PM +0100, tim hall wrote:
Last Tuesday 13 July 2004 13:11, kmd was like:
Agreed, I would only go to 2.6 is you really need some features in it -
its basicly stopped one of my machines from being a useful audio box.
- Steve
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
linux-audio-user mailing list
linux-audio-user(a)music.columbia.edu
http://music.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user
End of linux-audio-user Digest, Vol 10, Issue 55
************************************************
can i use the 2.6 kernel or should i use
the special compiled multimedia 2.4 kernel (for mandrake, via contrib
sources). and i have trouble as well to play with jack without being
root,
General consensus seems to be that a 2.4 multimedia kernel is the 'stable'
approach. You won't have to run Jack as root if you run a patched multimedia
kernel. You probably won't need to do a lot of tweaking. Best approach is
probably to get a working system with 2.4 and then upgrade to 2.6 only if
you're really not happy with results. Personally, I will be happy to wait
until 2.6 is more stable. 
14 Jul
14 Jul
8:11 a.m.
On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 10:44:44 -0700 (PDT) Brian Redfern
<bredfern(a)calarts.edu> wrote:
2.6 on suse is also different than 2.6 fedora, because
suse has a
couple of audio programmers who work to make sure their kernel works
with audio, so I can use all my audio apps out of the box with 9.2,
and the 2.6 kernel, without latency problems, and without needing a
kernel recompile.
Suse 9.2 ? I thought they are at 9.1, currently - no hints to 9.2 on
their web site (It's funny, there are some more "suse 9.2" google matches).
So, apparently suse 9.1 does have an audio friendly kernel?
Markus
2:08 p.m.
Markus Schwarzenberg wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 10:44:44 -0700 (PDT) Brian
Redfern
<bredfern(a)calarts.edu> wrote:
I believe that Takashi-san works for Suse. He recently posted a paper
showing some latency numbers for different distributions. Suse did quite
well as I remember. It was my impression that this was not an accident
and that he had played a part in making sure this was true.
It made me briefly consider trying Suse out... ;-0
- Mark
2.6 on suse is also different than 2.6 fedora,
because suse has a
couple of audio programmers who work to make sure their kernel works
with audio, so I can use all my audio apps out of the box with 9.2,
and the 2.6 kernel, without latency problems, and without needing a
kernel recompile.
Suse 9.2 ? I thought they are at 9.1, currently - no hints to 9.2 on
their web site (It's funny, there are some more "suse 9.2" google
matches).
So, apparently suse 9.1 does have an audio friendly kernel?
3:57 p.m.
On Wed, 2004-07-14 at 11:58, Mark Knecht wrote:
Markus Schwarzenberg wrote:
Speaking of which, can someone from SuSe somment on whether they use a
modified ReiserFS? The tests I have been running (see my recent posts
to linux-kernel) showed some latency problems with reiserfs that I did
not see with ext3. There was a latency-related thread on LKML in March
where Takashi mentioned a few changes to reiserfs that would give
excellent latency.
It seems very likely that with these changes, reiserfs is just as good
as ext3. I have not heard much from the reiserfs advocates on this
issue.
Lee
On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 10:44:44 -0700 (PDT) Brian
Redfern
<bredfern(a)calarts.edu> wrote:
I believe that Takashi-san works for Suse. He recently posted a paper
showing some latency numbers for different distributions. Suse did quite
well as I remember. It was my impression that this was not an accident
and that he had played a part in making sure this was true.
It made me briefly consider trying Suse out... ;-0
2.6 on suse is also different than 2.6 fedora,
because suse has a
couple of audio programmers who work to make sure their kernel works
with audio, so I can use all my audio apps out of the box with 9.2,
and the 2.6 kernel, without latency problems, and without needing a
kernel recompile.
Suse 9.2 ? I thought they are at 9.1, currently - no hints to 9.2 on
their web site (It's funny, there are some more "suse 9.2" google
matches).
So, apparently suse 9.1 does have an audio friendly kernel?
15 Jul
15 Jul
1:58 a.m.
On 14-Jul-2004 Lee Revell wrote:
} Speaking of which, can someone from SuSe somment on whether they use a
} modified ReiserFS? The tests I have been running (see my recent posts
} to linux-kernel) showed some latency problems with reiserfs that I did
} not see with ext3. There was a latency-related thread on LKML in March
} where Takashi mentioned a few changes to reiserfs that would give
} excellent latency.
Speaking of file systems... is anyone in here using XFS yet?
----------------------------------
E-Mail: RickTaylor(a)Speakeasy.Net
Date: 14-Jul-2004
Time: 22:45:39
This message was sent by XFMail
----------------------------------
10:40 a.m.
On Jul 15, 2004, at 12:46 AM, RickTaylor(a)speakeasy.net wrote:
Speaking of file systems... is anyone in here using XFS yet?
i'm using xfs, but i haven't done enough work yet to tell if it was a
good choice. i don't really have time to benchmark it either.
--
Joey Reid aka Dr.Whiz-Bang
Geek, musician, and friend of God
http://www.joeyreid.com
5:33 p.m.
On Wed, 2004-07-14 at 20:46, RickTaylor(a)speakeasy.net wrote:
Speaking of file systems... is anyone in here using
XFS yet?
I do.
For audio stuff (small files, small bitrate) it seems to me as good (or
as bad) as Ext3 and ReiserFS.
For video stuff (big files, big bitrates) it runs circles around all
other filesystems. E.g. "rm -f *" on 10 files 40GB total happens in less
than a second. :-)
In general it's amazingly fast with large files (hundred megs or more).
Since my PC is a general-purpose multimedia machine (audio + video) i
use XFS on the multimedia spool drives (and Ext3 on everything else).
--
Florin Andrei
http://florin.myip.org/
7482
days inactive
7484
days old
linux-audio-user@lists.linuxaudio.org
6 comments
7 participants
participants (7)
-
Brian Redfern -
Florin Andrei -
Joey Reid -
Lee Revell -
Mark Knecht -
Markus Schwarzenberg -
RickTaylor＠Speakeasy.Net