[PlanetCCRMA] another kernel patch

[Florin Andrei]

I agree with you, in that the safety of the recording process comes
before anything else.

However, things are not quite simple when it comes to schedulers and
virtual machine. A scheduler that provides a perceived better response
to the desktop does not necessarily harm the audio recorder; it is
conceivable that the opposite may happen, depending on many factors.
Only a good batch of tests can tell how exactly things are.

On Sat, 2003-07-05 at 09:18, Alex Timmer wrote:
> hi, 
> i haven't used these patches, but after quickly glancing over the
> site a few tings come to mind....
> 
> desktop responsiveness is great, but when i'm recording i want
> *every* sample to arrive on my harddisk on time, and i have no
> problems getting a less responsive desktop instead. 
> 
> i guess you can't have it all at the same time especially with
> single-processor systems, so i personally would choose a kernel which
> can keep up with my audio stream(s) at any time, at any cost (e.g.
> freezing my desktop for a split second to write audio to disk)
> ALEX
> p.s. for me the CCRMA kernel has done exactly that  =)
> 
> 
>  --- Florin Andrei <florin@andrei.myip.org> wrote: > Anyone else
> played with the Con Kolivas kernel on a multimedia
> > workstation?
> > 
> > http://members.optusnet.com.au/ckolivas/kernel/
> > 
> > In my experience, this kernel has the best responsiveness under all
> > kinds of loads. No matter what you do, the system remains
> > responsive.
> > This is probably a result of the O(1) batch scheduler, the VM
> > improvements, the read latency and the scheduler tuning.
> > (That read latency thing is awesome! Even when you do a "cat
> > /dev/zero >
> > /testfile" you can still read files easily; the read and the write
> > operations become "decoupled" almost completely.)
> > When i compare it to CK, the PlanetCCRMA kernel seems to have a
> > somewhat
> > poorer interactivity, especially under heavy load. Things like
> > switching
> > desktops or unminimizing windows are slower under the PlanetCCRMA
> > kernel, when compared to the Con Kolivas kernel (or even compared
> > to the
> > Red Hat kernel).
> > 
> > OTOH, i'm not sure how good the CK kernel is to do things like
> > digital
> > audio recording (a la Ardour), if you compare it to the PlanetCCRMA
> > kernel. Sure, it still has the low latency patch, but i wonder what
> > happens if you don't include the DRM, the ALSA RTC and the
> > capabilities
> > patches (which are included in the PlanetCCRMA kernel but not in
> > the CK
> > kernel).
> > (What is this DRM thing anyway?)
> > 
> > Ideally, i'd like to use a combination of the PlanetCCRMA kernel
> > and the
> > Con Kolivas kernel, but i'm not sure how well all those things
> > would go
> > together.
> > 
> > Anyone can shed some light please?
> > 
> > -- 
> > Florin Andrei
> > 
> > http://florin.myip.org/
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > PlanetCCRMA mailing list
> > PlanetCCRMA@ccrma.stanford.edu
> > http://ccrma-mail.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/planetccrma
> >  
> 
> ________________________________________________________________________
> Want to chat instantly with your online friends?  Get the FREE Yahoo!
> Messenger http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/
> _______________________________________________
> PlanetCCRMA mailing list
> PlanetCCRMA@ccrma.stanford.edu
> http://ccrma-mail.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/planetccrma
-- 
Florin Andrei

http://florin.myip.org/