And on the other hand, if you are wrong, which I think you are, although
I'm not 100% sure about that, you could be responsible for
continuing to spread a(nother) misunderstanding about jackdmp. (The
previous one was that jackdmp could not work on single processor machines)
Oh I don't have a problem with being corrected on it, just that particular answer didn't do much to actually answer the question(Which it was a question, not a statement) as you noticed. I appreciate the help and corrections though, don't get me wrong though, otherwise I wouldn't have posted at all;)
Seablade
On 7/21/07, Kjetil S. Matheussen <k.s.matheussen@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
(CC-ed to jack-audio-dev list)
"Thomas Vecchione":
>
> Seablade
>
> On 7/20/07, Kjetil S. Matheussen <k.s.matheussen@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Thomas Vecchione" < seablaede@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>> I heard Jack (jackdmp?) could only take advantage of two cores right
>> now?
>>
>> No.
>>
> Mind being a bit more specific? As in no it will handle 4,8, or 16 cores
> well?
>
Sorry, that was a short rude answer, especially since I'm not 100% sure of
the answer either. But I would be surprised if jackdmp was limited to two,
or any other high-value fixed number of, parallel sound processing
threads.
And on the other hand, if you are wrong, which I think you are, although
I'm not 100% sure about that, you could be responsible for
continuing to spread a(nother) misunderstanding about jackdmp. (The
previous one was that jackdmp could not work on single processor machines)
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/linux-audio-user
_______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/linux-audio-user
