On 16 Feb 2004 14:54:13 -0600 Jan Depner <eviltwin69@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Agreed. Your system should rock like crazy except for one leetle > problem. IRQ 9 is higher priority than IRQ 10 so every time you get > disk activity you're probably dropping audio. Yeah, that's what I would have *expected* -- so I was really surprised when the latency tests didn't work out that way. Playing PCM audio while writing, then copying, a 1.5 GB file (half again as large as my RAM, so can't RAM-cache it), with my disk over 90% full, still produced what I *think* (if I'm understanding all this correctly) are pretty good numbers (100% within 1ms of the fragment latency). But I do plan on tinkering with this, especially if the performance is troublesome when I start doing real stuff. But while the disk results looked good, the graphics results weren't very . . . -c -- Chris Metzler cmetzler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (remove "snip-me." to email) "As a child I understood how to give; I have forgotten this grace since I have become civilized." - Chief Luther Standing Bear -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://music.columbia.edu/pipermail/linux-audio-user/attachments/20040217/f1958816/attachment.bin
