--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 7/20/07, Paul Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Fri, 2007-07-20 at 15:31 +0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > wrote: > > > I've been working with the 2.6 series kernel now for some time with satisfactory > > > results ie (about 24 msec of latency and solid stability). I chose the 2.6 > > > series because its the latest, and I wouldn't have to patch as much to get > > > support for my hardware (firewire alsa realtime etc...). But I've been reading > > > more and more about how the 2.4 kernels can outperform 2.6 when patched properly, > > > any truth to this? > > > > no truth. its an old data point, no longer valid. that is, assuming we > > are talking about RT-patched 2.6 vs. RT-patched 2.4. if you mean vanilla > > 2.6 vs. RT-patched 2.4, the latter is still better. > > I'm not sure that is even true any more. No recent data, but I tested jackd > extensively in about the 2.6.7 to 2.6.11 time-frame, and found those vanilla > 2.6 kernels quite competitive with RT-patched 2.4 ones, at least on the > machines I was running at the time (all uniprocessors). > > The very early 2.6.x kernels were another story. :-) > -- > joq > _______________________________________________ > Linux-audio-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/linux-audio-dev > when you all say RT Patched you mean realtime module built, loaded configured and used by jack correct? _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/linux-audio-dev
