indeed I can't!
It has been a quite a while that I had attempted an implementation, and
on revisiting it now, I cannot detect any overhead.
Apologies for this wrong accusation and it looks that I can continue
with designing the patches using shmem!
Best,
Sebastian
cyrille henry wrote on
a couple of loose thoughts, I don't know anything about pi:
- you mean that using [netsend] / [netreceive] is too slow compared to
writing/reading to ramdisk?
- would it be better to centralize the patch+instances using pd~? (I
imagine [clone] uses the same thread)
- if these are single
hello,
can you elaborate about share-mem lib overhead?
I'm not aware of such problem.
cheers
Cyrille
Le 18/09/2021 à 18:43, Sebastian Lexer a écrit :
Hi List,
I want to share memory between several instances of PD running on separate
reserved cores. I've tried the share-mem lib, but it has a
Hi List,
I want to share memory between several instances of PD running on
separate reserved cores. I've tried the share-mem lib, but it has a very
high overhead.
Since I am writing custom externals for the puredata patches, I have
started to include writing the data to be shared into files
