On Wed, 2004-07-14 at 11:58, Mark Knecht wrote: > Markus Schwarzenberg wrote: > > On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 10:44:44 -0700 (PDT) Brian Redfern > > <bredfern@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > >>2.6 on suse is also different than 2.6 fedora, because suse has a > >>couple of audio programmers who work to make sure their kernel works > >>with audio, so I can use all my audio apps out of the box with 9.2, > >>and the 2.6 kernel, without latency problems, and without needing a > >>kernel recompile. > > > > > > Suse 9.2 ? I thought they are at 9.1, currently - no hints to 9.2 on > > their web site (It's funny, there are some more "suse 9.2" google matches). > > > > So, apparently suse 9.1 does have an audio friendly kernel? > > > > I believe that Takashi-san works for Suse. He recently posted a paper > showing some latency numbers for different distributions. Suse did quite > well as I remember. It was my impression that this was not an accident > and that he had played a part in making sure this was true. > > It made me briefly consider trying Suse out... ;-0 > Speaking of which, can someone from SuSe somment on whether they use a modified ReiserFS? The tests I have been running (see my recent posts to linux-kernel) showed some latency problems with reiserfs that I did not see with ext3. There was a latency-related thread on LKML in March where Takashi mentioned a few changes to reiserfs that would give excellent latency. It seems very likely that with these changes, reiserfs is just as good as ext3. I have not heard much from the reiserfs advocates on this issue. Lee
