I think you should try to turn acpi off. Where is your sound card in terms of interrupts? Take a look at: http://myweb.cableone.net/eviltwin69/Arcana.html#IRQs If your sound card IRQ is not on 9 then interrupts on your SCSI card are going to give you xruns since 10 is higher priority than everything else (unless you can get 0, 1, or 8). Jan On Sat, 2004-01-03 at 01:54, John Anderson wrote: > On Fri, 2004-01-02 at 14:47, Jan Depner wrote: > > This may sound strange but there have been reports of problems using > > SCSI disk drives. IIRC it had something to do with the Adaptec (29160) > > controllers. > > Did some searching on google for this, but I can't find anything that > looks useful. Did some checking on the drive though, and it has claimed > seek times of 5 ms, just a bit slower than the 15000rpm seagate cheetah. > > > A really good article on SCSI vs IDE is at > > > > http://www.prorec.com/prorec/articles.nsf/articles/1A37C1C69674D6D786256950005D2C39 > > > > Some of that article may come as a shock to hard-core SCSI fans ;-) I'm > > running - 2.4.22 lowlat/preempt, uniprocessor AthlonXP 1700+, 512MB RAM, > > 60GB ATA 100 5400rpm Maxtor IDE disk drive (data drive only), AZZA KT3AV > > KT133A Socket A motherboard, ST Audio (Hoontech) C-Port DSP2000 on IRQ > > 10 (not shared, IRQ 9 is unused), reiserfs. I hardly ever get any xruns > > on this system so I'm pretty amazed that you're getting them. What does > > your interrupt setup look like? I don't remember if we'd already > > covered the interrupts before. Do lspci -vvv and make sure that you're > > using IRQ 9 or 10 (or possibly 11) and it's not shared. > > OK, I've argued with the motherboard now, and after several hours I've > convinced it to put the 29160 on IRQ 10, by itself. Previously it was on > RQ 10, sharing with one of the 3 (three!) USB controllers. IRQ 9 seems > to be locked to "acpi" by the motherboard - doesn't handle any > interrupts according to /proc/interrupts though. Still getting the xruns > as often as before, but they sound different - not as long or intense. > > Hah. This is the first time I've discussed IRQs in terms of how they > sound ;-) > > bye > John > >
