On Tue, 31 Jul 2018 18:04:47 -0400 bill-auger <bill-auger@peers.community> wrote: > the argument against and optimizations package seems to be mainly, > that the high-powered machines that arch targets do not need to be > optimized; IMO, it's not so much that we have powerful systems, it's rather that the kernel and user space has improved. For instance the Arch kernel is compiled with high resolution timers and dynamic ticks, making recommendations about rtc, hpet, kernel ticker frequency, etc irrelevant. > perhaps some of those recommendations could be considered as > out-dated; but if so, then isnt it better to experiment and update > the recommendations and the system scanner script (and the linuxaudio > wiki, and the arch wiki) rather than dismiss, out of hand, that some > recommendations should exist? I don't want to dismiss anything, but on the other hand I think it's kind of pointless to change configurations for no good reason.. I suppose it might even be detrimental and cause people problems when they need to trouble shoot their systems.. Just because some distros do it seems an invalid reason to me.. I'd be for checking all these tuning tips out and if determined to really be beneficial either put it in the wiki or some kind of tuning package. I'd even be willing to invest some time in editing a wiki article or two, in fact I've considered doing so, but didn't want to just start deleting what I consider bad advice :) -- Joakim
