On Tuesday 18 March 2008, Arnold Krille wrote: > Am Dienstag, 18. März 2008 schrieb Mark Knecht: > > On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 11:25 AM, Arda Eden <ardaeden@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > So is it really necessary to have a realtime kernel in order to use > > > linux audio applications without any latencies or xruns ? > > > > It is not possible to use ANY kernel with NO latencies. EVERY kernel > > has latencies. The question is how low do you want the latencies to > > be? If you can exist with 50mS or higher you might get away with a > > standard kernel. If you want to run with 1.2mS latency then you will > > absolutely have to have a real-time enabled kernel. > > Still it has to be noted that you can achieve 5ms latency without a > RT-kernel... Even with an el-cheapo builtin soundcard... The question is not really whether it works at all, but rather how reliable it is. Even if it is possible to run a vanilla kernel with a < 10 ms latency setting it will be far more reliable to use a properly tuned -rt system. With the -rt system it is pretty much guaranteed that the kernel nor any other processes might ever make jack fail to meet its deadline. With a vanilla kernel you might just have been lucky. So even if i were to record with a high latency setting (e.g. i don't need low latency for monitoring or live instrument effect processing) i would still use a properly tuned -rt system. A single xrun can ruin an otherwise magic take/recording, a maybe unrepeatable performance. To minimize the chances of this happening is IMHO almost always justifying the use of an -rt kernel when doing audio recording/processing.. Regards, Flo -- Palimm Palimm! http://tapas.affenbande.org _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-user
