On 2/21/06, Lee Revell <rlrevell@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, 2006-02-21 at 13:19 -0600, Jan Depner wrote: > > There's a bunch of information on that on my site (albeit outdated). > > Tuning the disk drives is a must and it *will* help but there are > > instances where the disk drive is busy and you can't get to it no > > matter > > how well tuned it is. I prefer to minimize any chance of that. You > > have to remember that unless you're running RTLinux or VXWorks (or DOS > > or VMS) you're not running a hard real time system. Shit happens. > > > > The -rt kernel with fuill preemption actually is a hard real time system > (no one claims it is in the same league of reliability as QNX or > VXWorks, yet...) - it should be able to guarantee response times. > > Of course the best RTOS in the world won't save you from apps that do > disk or GUI stuff in a non RT safe way, or from buggy ACPI > implementations that disappear the CPU out from under the OS for > milliseconds... > > Lee Just speaking logically, if badly written apps can cause a real-time kernel to have some xruns, then isn't it true that a badly written WM could do the same thing? Either the kernel is safe and handles this stuff or it isn;t 'safe' and cannot stop it. I understand from other conversations that some apps are considered to be non-realtime safe. I do not understand how anyone could ever know that a WM is truly rt safe. How? Just because one uses Gnome, fluxbox or fvwm and doesn't see xruns is not proof that it's truly rt safe. You cannot prove a negative, etc.... - Mark
