On Mon, Feb 24, 2003 at 07:49:43 +0100, Martijn Sipkema wrote: > > > [...] > > > > > Perhaps you would reconsider having JACK use constant (frames) > > > > > callbacks? > > > > > > > > I think a better solution might be to buffer up enough samples so that > > > > jackd can provide a constant number of frames. > > > > > > I don't think that is a better solution. JACK should be close to the > > > hardware and deliver what the hardware is capable of. If a client needs > > > constant (frames) period, it can do the buffering itself. > > > > Not without making the cpu load unpredictable. > > Is that so? And why is it that JACK can and a client cannot?
Because the client can segment correctly give power-of-two buffers. > > I think its a bad idea to life hard for (some) clients because of a few > > bad hardware designs. > > Hardly a few. And not even necessarily bad. It is a slightly crazy design. Just doesn't fit well with the way PCs work. - Steve
