On Wed, 2004-12-29 at 17:30 -0800, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano wrote: > On Wed, 2004-12-29 at 16:52, Lee Revell wrote: > > On Wed, 2004-12-29 at 16:21 -0800, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano wrote: > > > On Wed, 2004-12-29 at 15:10, Lee Revell wrote: > > > > I tried JACK today with vanilla 2.6.10 and had excellent reaults - it > > > > works with 32 and 64 frames, which previously required Ingo's patches. > > > > Many of the latency fixes have been going upstream, and it looks like we > > > > are finally showing some results. I think we may finally have a kernel > > > > that's usable out of the box for low latency audio. > > > > > > > > Can someone else try to verify these results? > > > > > > I'll try to asap. A Planet CCRMA fellow dweller just posted some very > > > rough comparison tests between several kernels and 2.6.10 was doing > > > quite well. The 0.7.33-04 DESKTOP_PREEMPT was doing much better but was > > > also less stable (but he was testing it with extremely low buffer > > > sizes). > > > > This was on the CCRMA list? Got a URL? > > http://ccrma-mail.stanford.edu/pipermail/planetccrma/2004-December/007341.html > http://ccrma-mail.stanford.edu/pipermail/planetccrma/2004-December/007343.html >From the above post: Currently I think that the most usable system is 2.6.10 (that is if you are willing to run all of your audio software as root, which is not a good idea as a bad bug could bring your system to its knees) This user like many others is confusing the realtime preempt patches with the realtime LSM. You should point this out (I am not on the CCRMA list). The current version of the realtime LSM kernel patch applies cleanly against 2.6.10. Lee
