On Wed, 2003-01-22 at 10:51, Mark Knecht wrote:
> Thanks Fernando. I hadn't seen that, and it makes me feel better to know
> it's just a standard design problem.
>
> I'll still put Jack in the console, I think, to keep it off my desktop, and
> just look there occasionally to see how things have be
Hi Mark and thanks for an extensive answer.
I've read parts of Jan's paper, a lot of good info, very interesting
your parts regarding filesystem. I wouldn't have guessed that ReisterFS
would have been the least intrusive of the tested filesystems!
My current system is an Athlon XP 1700+, MSI 26
On Wed, Jan 22, 2003 at 10:51:21AM -0800, Mark Knecht wrote:
> Thanks Fernando. I hadn't seen that, and it makes me feel better to know
> it's just a standard design problem.
>
> I'll still put Jack in the console, I think, to keep it off my desktop, and
> just look there occasionally to see how t
> I'll still put Jack in the console, I think, to keep it off my desktop, and
> just look there occasionally to see how things have been going.
>
> Actually, can I somehow take the jackstart output that goes to the F2
> console and pipe it to a file that I could look at from KDE? That would be
> n
>Actually, can I somehow take the jackstart output that goes to the F2
>console and pipe it to a file that I could look at from KDE? That would be
>nice too.
general unix techniques, part 2003.45 (all assume the use of a bourne
shell-like shell, which covers bash, zsh, sh, ksh, ash and many others
Mark Knecht wrote on Wed, 22-Jan-2003:
> Actually, can I somehow take the jackstart output that goes to the F2
> console and pipe it to a file that I could look at from KDE? That would be
> nice too.
>
Sure, if using bash, just run it:
jackstartoptionsblahblah &> /tmp/jack.output &
The
Thanks Fernando. I hadn't seen that, and it makes me feel better to know
it's just a standard design problem.
I'll still put Jack in the console, I think, to keep it off my desktop, and
just look there occasionally to see how things have been going.
Actually, can I somehow take the jackstart outp
>I have noticed that there are still a number of system oriented things
> that, on my system, absolutely guarantee an xrun. The simplest is dropping
> down to a console. (Alt-Ctl-F2)
It is a known problem and is in the list of "things you should not do"
in Andrew Morton's low latency page (at
>
> Would you care to describe your setup, hardware/kernel versions etc...?
>
Robert,
At the risk of looking like Steve's shadow, I run the PlanetCCRMA flow on
two machines. The low-end machine is an older Dell P3-500 with a Hammerfall
light and 768MB of DRAM. In that machine I run Jack with a -
> >I thought I'd pipe up here, as I use jack on a totally unpatched, untuned
> >system (with SCHED_FIFO) and get rock solid performance.
> >
> Hmmm, that's annoying, I've never had that happen to me >:-|
> ;-) no, seriously, that's really great! Sadly this is not the case
> for all of us...
>
>
> >I thought I'd pipe up here, as I use jack on a totally unpatched, untuned
> >system (with SCHED_FIFO) and get rock solid performance.
> >
> Hmmm, that's annoying, I've never had that happen to me >:-|
> ;-) no, seriously, that's really great! Sadly this is not the case
> for all of us...
>
>
On Wed, Jan 22, 2003 at 06:10:31 +0100, Robert Jonsson wrote:
> Well, as I asked David, care to describe your setup that provides such
> wonderful performance?
I'd hardly describe it as wonderful, but:
VIA KT333 based mobo (can't remeber the brand)
AMD Athlon XP 1800 (1.5 GHz)
Generic DDR333 ram
Steve Harris wrote:
On Wed, Jan 22, 2003 at 03:57:40 +0100, Robert Jonsson wrote:
What I have noticed is subtle, I have xruns in both situations but the
rate increases noticeably.
I've been running patched kernels but there are all kinds of parameters
(as I'm sure you know) to tweak before i
Dave Griffiths wrote:
It shouldn't be a problem, iwht only a few apps running the overhead is
very small. If by "isn't perfectly tuned" you mean not running SCHED_FIFO
or a patched kernel that its not that supprising, the context switch will
be causing big problems. But, at worst it should just m
On Wed, Jan 22, 2003 at 04:26:02PM +0100, Dave Griffiths wrote:
>I thought I'd pipe up here, as I use jack on a totally unpatched, untuned
>system (with SCHED_FIFO) and get rock solid performance. All crashes etc have
>so far been problems with my code :)
It should provide to be useful if we could
> > It shouldn't be a problem, iwht only a few apps running the overhead is
> > very small. If by "isn't perfectly tuned" you mean not running SCHED_FIFO
> > or a patched kernel that its not that supprising, the context switch will
> > be causing big problems. But, at worst it should just make xrun
On Wed, Jan 22, 2003 at 03:57:40 +0100, Robert Jonsson wrote:
> What I have noticed is subtle, I have xruns in both situations but the
> rate increases noticeably.
> I've been running patched kernels but there are all kinds of parameters
> (as I'm sure you know) to tweak before it is sufficiently
Hi,
c) I thought that because the extra weight(scheduling etc) that jack
adds this was perfectly justified.
My system isn't perfectly tuned and that might be the reason I notice
the difference...
It shouldn't be a problem, iwht only a few apps running the overhead is
very small. If by "isn't
On Wed, Jan 22, 2003 at 03:22:42 +0100, Robert Jonsson wrote:
> Atleast I have noticed that performance is worse running with jack than
> running without it. My evidence is basically running MusE with alsa vs
> jack output. Running with jack it is much more prone to produce xruns.
>
> I have not
19 matches
Mail list logo
