Re: Lowlatency kernel testing (Re: A feature for -lowlatency kernel?)
On 04/06/2011 02:36 AM, ailo wrote: > The diff in my tests may be more related to me picking up problems > during later tests, that I didn't pick up during my first tests. Or > something in Ubuntu other than the kernel is affecting that in later tests. I forgot to mention, that after revisiting the results of my few tests, I don't see any diffs concerning -lowlatency. Must have thought I would have got a few audio dropouts with 2.6.38-1 -lowlatency, if I had just given it some more time.. -- ailo -- Ubuntu-Studio-devel mailing list Ubuntu-Studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel
Re: Lowlatency kernel testing (Re: A feature for -lowlatency kernel?)
Ironically, I am getting very nice results this second time I am trying the 2.6.38-7 -generic kernel. Using the trace, however, causes a lot of audio dropouts when using a low latency setting. I will give it some more time. Hopefully, things will stay like this, then. On 04/06/2011 02:36 AM, ailo wrote: > On 04/05/2011 09:13 PM, David Henningsson wrote: >>> I'm testing the 2.6.38-7 -generic, and it is in fact working better than >>> before. Almost as well as -lowlatency. >> >> Only almost? >> Anyway, that's kind of why I've losing faith in lowlatency personally - >> I have yet to see someone showing me that it actually performs better >> than the generic kernel. >> > > I have not been able to achieve as low latencies with -generic as with > -lowlatency, except for once, which was on 2.6.38-1. At the time, > -generic seemed to behave exactly the same as -lowlatency, however after > a system update, the same -generic kernel would not give me low > latencies without audio dropouts anymore. > Two of us got the same initial result with 2.6.38-1, so I'm pretty sure > it was not something I dreamt :P. > > After that, for a good while, -generic was not usable with jackd for > latencies that are required for playing soft instruments, or monitoring > realtime audio processing. > Now, with 2.6.38-7, -generic seems to behave a good deal better, but I > can still not get the same low latency as I can with -lowlatency. > > Also, during this whole period, -lowlatency has been more or less, > perfectly stable, and virtually as reliable as a realtime patched kernel. > The diff in my tests may be more related to me picking up problems > during later tests, that I didn't pick up during my first tests. Or > something in Ubuntu other than the kernel is affecting that in later tests. > > So, my opinion is, I have still to see proof of -generic behaving as > reliably as -lowlatency. > -- ailo -- Ubuntu-Studio-devel mailing list Ubuntu-Studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel
Re: Lowlatency kernel testing (Re: A feature for -lowlatency kernel?)
On 04/05/2011 09:13 PM, David Henningsson wrote: >> I'm testing the 2.6.38-7 -generic, and it is in fact working better than >> before. Almost as well as -lowlatency. > > Only almost? > Anyway, that's kind of why I've losing faith in lowlatency personally - > I have yet to see someone showing me that it actually performs better > than the generic kernel. > I have not been able to achieve as low latencies with -generic as with -lowlatency, except for once, which was on 2.6.38-1. At the time, -generic seemed to behave exactly the same as -lowlatency, however after a system update, the same -generic kernel would not give me low latencies without audio dropouts anymore. Two of us got the same initial result with 2.6.38-1, so I'm pretty sure it was not something I dreamt :P. After that, for a good while, -generic was not usable with jackd for latencies that are required for playing soft instruments, or monitoring realtime audio processing. Now, with 2.6.38-7, -generic seems to behave a good deal better, but I can still not get the same low latency as I can with -lowlatency. Also, during this whole period, -lowlatency has been more or less, perfectly stable, and virtually as reliable as a realtime patched kernel. The diff in my tests may be more related to me picking up problems during later tests, that I didn't pick up during my first tests. Or something in Ubuntu other than the kernel is affecting that in later tests. So, my opinion is, I have still to see proof of -generic behaving as reliably as -lowlatency. -- ailo -- Ubuntu-Studio-devel mailing list Ubuntu-Studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel
Re: Lowlatency kernel testing (Re: A feature for -lowlatency kernel?)
On 2011-04-01 21:49, ailo wrote: I'm not sure how to catch the output. I'm not getting any messages to the root shell. Am I supposed to? I'm not sure I understand your question, but if there is something in the /sys/kernel/debug/tracing/trace file that looks interesting you can always get it out by e g "cat trace > /tmp/trace.txt", then "chmod 666 /tmp/trace.txt" or something like that [1]. Or is your problem that the /sys/kernel/debug/tracing/trace file is empty? I'm testing the 2.6.38-7 -generic, and it is in fact working better than before. Almost as well as -lowlatency. Only almost? Anyway, that's kind of why I've losing faith in lowlatency personally - I have yet to see someone showing me that it actually performs better than the generic kernel. -- David Henningsson, Canonical Ltd. http://launchpad.net/~diwic [1] I bet there are shell veterans who know how to do that more elegant :-) -- Ubuntu-Studio-devel mailing list Ubuntu-Studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel
Re: Ubuntustudio Natty GlobalJam tests
Hi Ronan, Sorry for long delay. 2011/4/3 Ronan Jouchet : [...] > 4. Installing abogani's lowlatency failed because of missing headers :-/ ; > here is what I have: > sudo apt-get install linux-lowlatency linux-headers-lowlatency > linux-headers-2.6.38-8-lowlatency > The following packages have unmet dependencies: > linux-headers-2.6.38-8-lowlatency : Depends: linux-headers-2.6.38-8 but > it is not installable > Alessio, could you update your ppa? Could you install linux-headers-2.6.38-8 manualy and report result, please? Thanks a lot Ronan! Ciao, Alessio -- Ubuntu-Studio-devel mailing list Ubuntu-Studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel
Re: Ubuntustudio Natty GlobalJam tests
On Sun, Apr 3, 2011 at 4:32 PM, Ronan Jouchet wrote: > Hi Ubuntustudio-devel, hi Alessio, > > I've been doing some tests with today's Studio iso, here are my findings: > 1. *Installing from usb failed*: after pressing Enter to install I just > have a black screen. I may have borked the setup of my usb source key > (though it usually works with usb-creator-gtk) and will try again. As a > result I just installed Ubuntu vanilla, and installed ubuntustudio-desktop > and ubuntustudio-audio* and added my user to the audio group. Went fine. > 2. *Network-manager works fine* (except the fact that the icon is shown > incorrectly when used in the classic Notification area, but it's known and > Mathieu Trudel says it's being fixed) > 3. *JACK starts great* then, and *latencies are as usual* with -generic > 4. *Installing abogani's lowlatency failed* because of missing headers :-/ > ; here is what I have: > *sudo apt-get install linux-lowlatency linux-headers-lowlatency > linux-headers-2.6.38-8-lowlatency > The following packages have unmet dependencies: > linux-headers-2.6.38-8-lowlatency : Depends: linux-headers-2.6.38-8 but > it is not installable* > Alessio, could you update your ppa? > 5. The *desktop feels weird*: previously Studio stuck with gnome2, > traditional applets and all, and it was ok. Here we have a Natty that looks > like a mix of new indicator/ubuntu elements and old gnome2 stuff. I don't > know, it's kinda Frankenstein-ish, doesn't feel coherent and doesn't give > you the best of both worlds, quite the contrary. Maybe UI reconsiderations > should be planned for Oneiric? Staying to full classic GNOME (without global > menu, without indicator applets), or Unity 2D if it is in an acceptable > state. > > Good day, > > -- Ronan > > -- > Ubuntu-Studio-devel mailing list > Ubuntu-Studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com > Modify settings or unsubscribe at: > https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel > > Hi Ronan! Thanks for testing and reporting your findings :) I'd like to add a few comments and a question. 1. I question that stable, consistent installation from USB is currently possible. I have heard that some have accomplished it, but I really am not certain it can be done consistently. Holstein has done some looking into this as well. Perhaps he more information. But I can say that while this is not a priority for the Ubuntu Studio team I would like to see us move in this direction though. 2. I am very happy to hear positive (or any!) feedback about network manager. To remind, we switched from gnome-network-admin to network-manager so that users will have better connectivity after installation. 3. I'm not sure I understand what you are stating. Are you saying the -generic performed as expected? And that is acceptable? 4. No comment. 5. We are looking into UI considerations for Ocelot. Again, thank you for your email and comments :) ScottL -- Ubuntu-Studio-devel mailing list Ubuntu-Studio-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-studio-devel
