> >> I'm planning to use arecord for serious harddisk recording, but it can't > > that's a non-starter :) at the very least, you'd better make sure you > always use a period size larger than the maximum scheduling delay you > think you might encounter, since arecord writes to disk from the same > thread as one audio I/O is done from.
Yes it doesn't sound sexy at all. But I tested arecord to perform nicely with 96khz 24channels 32bit data, on a ext2 filesystem (I found ext2 to be the best filesystem for this kind of writing). As I'm going to record max 12 channels, this seemed like a reasonable solution. After all, I didn't know ecasound can handle 96khz and I didn't have very promising results with ardour&jack, but the bottleneck was almost certainly my full ide-hd at the end of the disk (physically also at the end) and reiserFS, which causes overhaul to the process due journaling (I think, not 100% sure about this). > ecasound would be a much better idea, much, much better. I think I'll give ardour an another try and fall back to ecasound, which seems to be the right tool for now. Tommi Uimonen ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ Alsa-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/alsa-devel
