On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 1:40 PM, Ralf Mardorf <ralf.mard...@alice-dsl.net>wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-09-30 at 13:25 -0500, Scott Lavender wrote: > > > > On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 11:44 AM, Ralf Mardorf > > <ralf.mard...@alice-dsl.net> wrote: > > On Thu, 2010-09-30 at 17:15 +0100, Ricardo Lameiro wrote: > > > I agree with you. I think the best compromise is to use the > > Hard RT > > > kernel patch on top of vanilla kernel, and have the Generic > > kernel for > > > everyday usage. > > > You can choose which kernel to boot from at the beginning, > > > > > > I only use vanilla + rt-patched kernels for audio-video and > > everyday > > usage. The only difference is the CPU frequency scaling. For > > everyday > > usage I set it to ondemand and for audio-video work to > > performance and > > sometimes I manually enable hr timer when doing MIDI work. > > > > IMO just a kernl-rt is needed, but as I mentioned before, > > people running > > 32-bit architecture might need a patch to enable usage of > > large RAM. > > > > But indeed, GRUB is our friend, we are free to use several > > kernels. OT: > > GRUB is a little bit more user-friendly than GRUB2 is ;). > > > > > Hard RT kernel, should be the only one to be supported, > > since it is > > > the kernel that brings more benefits to audio/video > > production, If we > > > spread attention with 2 more kernel flavours, no one can > > support it, > > > and lets face it, abogani makes a hell of a good job, so we > > should > > > simplify is life :D > > > > > > Hm, on my Ubuntu Studio, neither Abogani's, anyone else or my > > own build > > kernel-rt are ok :(. I can't boot any kernel-rt. > > > > I'm able to run Suse with my self build kernel-rt, but not > > with the > > repositories once and I'm able to run 64 Studio (Hardy, > > Karmic) with > > kernel-rt from the repositories and self build kernels. > > > > Live CDs, e.g. AV Linux are ok with the kernel-rt. > > > > Anyway, the rt-patch could be a PITA, while the PREEMPT only > > kernel for > > Ubuntu Studio is ok on my machine, as far as a PREEMPT only > > kernel is > > able to do some jobs, but I'm able to boot the kernel. > > > > IMO we only should take care of the kernel-rt and no other > > kernel. > > Hard disk drives today are less expensive so everybody should > > be able to > > install a distro for audio-video usage and if needed other > > distros for > > other usages, because not only the kernel makes a different. > > IMO a DAW > > e.g. don't need the security that's needed for some other > > usages. > > > > I'm running several Linux, no Windows, on my 2 core AMD 64-bit > > PC, for > > everyday usage and audio-MIDI productions, all Linux with > > kernel-rt > > only, excepted Ubuntu Studio, because I didn't had the time to > > troubleshoot why I'm unable to boot a kernel-rt for Ubuntu > > Studio. > > > > I prefer 64 Studio, but I really like Suse and Ubuntu Studio > > too, of > > course there are some other good distros, but those three are > > my > > favourites, even if Ubuntu Studio until today isn't ready for > > production. > > I like the concept of Ubuntu Studio, excepted of the default > > PREEMPT > > kernel, without rt-patch. > > > > This are just my personal 2 cents, the advantage of Linux, > > that we do > > have a lot of different paths we could go, even if it > > sometimes seems to > > be a disadvantage. > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Ubuntu-Studio-users mailing list > > Ubuntu-Studio-users@lists.ubuntu.com > > Modify settings or unsubscribe at: > > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-users > > > > > > This isn't necessarily addressed to Ralf, but it ties in with the > > comments in his email. > > > > Ubuntu Studio as a project makes far fewer decisions that people > > probably expect. The kernel is a good example. > > > > The Ubuntu Studio team did not decide to remove the -rt kernel from > > the ISO image because we think it is inferior or that another kernel > > performs better. We would like to still be able to provide it to our > > users because we understand that it yields performance that other > > kernels cannot provide. We can no longer provide the -rt kernel in > > the ISO image because it is no longer in the official archives. > > > > Ubuntu Studio exists and must maneuver within Canonical/Ubuntu > > ecosphere. And sometimes decisions are made by Canonical or Ubuntu > > that grossly affect Ubuntu Studio. Some of those can be mitigated > > (e.g. ubuntustudio-menu vs. ubuntu menu with social integration) and > > others cannot. > > > > By the way, mitigating such things is a very good reason to keep > > building ISOs instead of just focusing on a Ubuntu Studio PPA. > > > > Some of the reasoning to remove the -rt kernel is because of a desire > > to keep the kernel versions aligned between Ubuntu and Ubuntu Studio. > > And since the -rt patch is not available for every kernel version > > release, to continuously maintain the alignment would eventually be > > untenable, as witnessed with Lucid. > > > > Therefore, Ubuntu Studio is progressing to get the -lowlatency kernel > > accepted and promoted to the official archives. This way we can offer > > it in the ISO image. This would provide a performance tuned kernel > > that hopefully most of our users will find acceptable > > "out-of-the-box". Since the -lowlatency kernel results from compiling > > the -generic kernel with different flags (at least my understanding of > > it), it can be easily and continuously maintained in the repositories. > > > > For those who still require an -rt kernel, we are planning to > > accommodate those persons by offering the -rt kernel in a PPA. > > However, it should be noted that the -rt kernel version will not > > necessarily align with the kernel offered with any particular current > > Ubuntu Studio release. As mentioned previously, since we cannot > > control which versions will have a -rt patch released, therefore we > > cannot control which versions can be -rt kernels. And we certainly > > are not going to have Ubuntu as a whole use an older kernel to keep us > > in sync. > > > > I would not expect the -rt kernel to ever be in the archives again for > > the reasons mentioned above. This is a secondary effect of developing > > Ubuntu Studio within the Ubuntu framework. A small detraction, given > > that we can still offer it in a PPA, given the overwhelming sea of > > gains of working within the framework. > > > > I hope this clears up any misconceptions. > > > > Cheers, > > ScottL > > 2 cents: > > Of course the rt-patch isn't available for every vanilla kernel version. > > But is it wise to have a distro that includes applications like Ardour, > JAMin, JACK etc. without a kernel-rt? > > What do you think would be the answer, if somebody has got an issue when > using Ardour and the person ask at the Ardour users mailing list, > posting that the kernel isn't a kernel-rt? > > What is Ubuntu Studio for? > > I guess we could install a 'normal' Ubuntu and add Ardour, JACK etc., if > Ubuntu Studio don't support a kernel-rt I don't understand what it > should be for? > > Supporting real-time applications without a kernel that is patched with > a rt-patch IMO is pointless. > > *?* > Ralf > > > > > -- > Ubuntu-Studio-users mailing list > Ubuntu-Studio-users@lists.ubuntu.com > Modify settings or unsubscribe at: > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-users > Ralf, How do you suggest that the -rt kernel be included in Ubuntu Studio if it is not in the Ubuntu repositories? This is not a rhetorical question. I, as Ubuntu Studio project lead, would like to include it. If you can provide a tenable method to include the -rt kernel in the Ubuntu Studio ISO image I would like to implement it. If an acceptable solution is not found to include it in the ISO then I believe that we are providing the next best solution; provide another performance tuned kernel (i.e. -lowlatency) and make sure that the -rt kernel is available in PPA and people know about it. I routinely run Ardour on my P4 2.3ghz desktop with 1.5gigs of memory and the -generic kernel at 11msecs latency and only see xruns when starting applications. I would imagine that the -lowlatency kernel gives even better performance. Please test the other kernels available before saying that running applications without a rt-patched kernel is pointless. Regards, ScottL
-- Ubuntu-Studio-users mailing list Ubuntu-Studio-users@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-users
