Subject: RE: [linux-audio-dev] It's time to vote (n. 1)
From: STEFFL, ERIK *Internet* (SBCSI) ("STEFFL,)
Date: Thu May 24 2001 - 22:12:03 EEST
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David G Matthews [mailto:dgm4+@pitt.edu]
>
> What about using UDP instead of TCP/IP? I don't know a whole
udp instead of tcp. both udp and tcp are part of tcp/ip (along with ip,
icmp, ...)
erik
> 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
> >
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Thu May 24 2001 - 23:46:00 EEST