Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] Hmmm, interesting statement on latency
From: Benno Senoner (sbenno_AT_gardena.net)
Date: Tue Jul 24 2001 - 01:31:39 EEST
On Monday 23 July 2001 19:13, Richard C. Burnett wrote:
> I found this article on www.prorec.com on Windows 2000, thought you all
> would find it interesting:
>
>
> "in the average PC Windows 2000 is able to meet worst case high priority
> task latencies close to 1 ms, while Windows 9X
> does not even meet 100 ms. Worst-case high priority task latency is the
> single most important measure of a systems ability to
> perform low latency real-time processing of massive data amounts."
I want to see this in action first before believing to "press releases".
I'll believe it when someone will produce "latencytest-like" diagrams on a
heavily stressed box.
Of course to achieve this kind of latencies you do need to write windows
kernel modules with all the related disadvantages ..
See gigasampler: it's a really nice sampler and squeezes out the most of
win95/98 but I seem to recall that they are having big troubles to port it to
win2k/xp because it is programmed too close to the hardware.
>
> That seems like a HELL of an improvement! I like the 'in the average' part
> though. What latency are we targeting for Linux??
RELIABLE 2-3msec (under Benno's ultra-heavy typical load) is possible on
todays boxes.
cheers,
Benno
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Tue Jul 24 2001 - 01:27:59 EEST