Re: [linux-audio-dev] It's time to vote (n. 1)

New Message Reply About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Other groups

Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] It's time to vote (n. 1)
From: David G Matthews (dgm4+@pitt.edu)
Date: Thu May 24 2001 - 20:03:51 EEST


What about using UDP instead of TCP/IP? I don't know a whole lot about
networking, but I do know that jMax uses UDP for interprocess
communication, and I know some people who have experimented with audio
over UDP for real-time work. AFAIK it's a little less reliable than
TCP/IP, but gives lower latencies.
-dgm

On Thu, 24 May 2001, Steve Harris wrote:

> On Thu, May 24, 2001 at 01:53:56PM +0200, Jörn Nettingsmeier wrote:
> > > Over ethernet it seem to be only the first packet that is slow, probably
> > > depends on the make of switch though. Unswitched private networks should
> > > be fine. But as Paul said these times are too slow to be useful.
> >
> > are there any obstacles in this setup i have overlooked ?
> > from my experience, ping latency is well below 500 usecs. if that's
> > a measure for the actual audio latency, we'll be doing fine.
>
> Thats a measure of the minimum extra overhead, in practice it will be a
> lot higher as you will have to pull the data from the packet process it
> wrapper it back up again and send it back.
>
> Also remeber you have to reassemble the packets in the right order as the
> ordering is not guaranteed.
>
> I might try some benchmarks if anyone is interested. I'm guessing that you
> really need gigabit though. IP over SCSI or 1395 might be an option, but
> that's far more exotic.
>
> - Steve
>


New Message Reply About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Other groups

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Thu May 24 2001 - 21:52:44 EEST