On 09/30/2010 08:40 PM, Ralf Mardorf wrote: > On Thu, 2010-09-30 at 13:25 -0500, Scott Lavender wrote: >> >> On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 11:44 AM, Ralf Mardorf >> <[email protected]> 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 >> [email protected] >> 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 > > > >
Hello Ralf, It's not pointless. A lot of stuff from the patch-set has been integrated in the vanilla kernel already throughout the years. It is perfectly possible to run an audio production PC without a real-time kernel these days. I wouldn't need a real-time kernel if the FireWire controller in my notebook for instance would sit on its own IRQ. But no, it shares its IRQ with a dozen of other devices so I really need a real-time kernel to prioritize my FireWire IRQ thread. If it wasn't for that I would be perfectly happy with -lowlatency. Best, Jeremy -- Ubuntu-Studio-users mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-users
