> From: jonetsu@xxxxxxxxxxxx > > If a better response time from the kernel is something that's Good, why > isn't lowlatency kernels a default in Linux distros (well, at least in > Linux Mint and Fedora) If it is So Good, what are the arguments for not > having a lowlatency kernel by default ? Any drawbacks ? I presume the > Audio-oriented Linux distros do have lowlatency kernels by default, do > they ? > The Fedora Musicians Guide has a good topic on Real-Time and Low-Latency: http://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora_Draft_Documentation/0.1/html/Musicians_Guide/chap-Musicians_Guide-Real_Time_and_Low_Latency.html My understanding: * A Real-Time kernel will give you more consistent, reliable latency. - But not necessarily lower latency * Useful, proven, RT features migrate into the main kernel. - So use the RT patches to test and prove them. * Current main kernels give reasonable performance for most musicians. - Your mileage may vary, if you get some annoying x-runs use the RT patch. - Sound travels ~1 foot per millisecond, 8 feet from the speaker = 8ms latency -- Jeff _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
