[LAD] tschack ... early version of smp enabled jack1

[Stéphane Letz]

>> s.
> 
> well, as i said, it was nothing really conclusive (i'm not going to waste much time to go from 128/2 to 64/2, diminishing returns...), and my box is generally under-powered for what i do with it.
> 
> in short, i figured it's not significant really. i merely added this here in case there's a general picture emerging... it wasn't even intended as criticism.
> 
> and even if it turned out jack2 would be one step worse than jack1, that's not at all a big price to pay for smp imho. same with the kernel: an smp build does degrade performance on an up box, but who cares, really? you can't even buy up workstations any more, and nature dictates that single-core performance has hit its limit...
> 
> luck has it that my mobo just got fried, so chances are i'll be contributing some nice quad-core data in the near future - if only my customers paid their bills on time...
> 
> 
> best,
> 
> jörn
> 


The point is not "criticism" or not ((-: , but if i can get any useful info to see if a real problem still exist or if any kind of regression between 2 versions has happened somewhere..

Stéphane