On Tuesday 18 April 2006 02:54, Loki Davison was like: > > One note: Based on a comment Lee Revel made a few days ago, I think > > on this list, about the standard kernel giving good realtime results I > > built 2.6.16-gentoo-r2 on Saturday. It's now up two days with no > > problems. I'm running at 128/2, and even 64/2 as shown below) in Jack > > with no xruns so far although I've got a cold and am using it very > > lightly right now. Anyway, I agree with Lee (so far!) that even the > > current 2.6.16 series is giving much better performance than older > > kernels even without Ingo's patches. IF it matters I use the > > realtime-lsm module and not the othe PAM based stuff. I just bit the bullet and decided to have a go at rolling my own kernel for the first time, following the DeMuDi HOWTO http://demudi.agnula.org/wiki/Low-latencyKernelBuildingHowto and a certain amount of advice from Antonio and well, 5 builds later I seem to have a working kernel! I´m using the patched libpam modules from Ubuntu (heh ;) with 2.6.16.5 so far so good. Ardour-0.99 seems happy, with a really low dsp. Certainly as good as I´ve had with earlier -rt patched kernel packages from DeMuDi. I´m wondering whether setting negative nice values in /etc/security/limits.conf is necessary or even a good idea. I shall have to play around and fine-tune things a bit yet. Now I have started I may as well build an -rt patched version to test the difference. Does it conflict with PAM rtlimits? -- cheers, tim hall http://glastonburymusic.org.uk/tim
