Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] It's time to vote (n. 1)
From: Dan Hollis (goemon_AT_anime.net)
Date: Fri May 25 2001 - 20:51:24 EEST
On Fri, 25 May 2001, Steve Harris wrote:
> On Fri, May 25, 2001 at 03:07:08AM -0700, Dan Hollis wrote:
> > On Fri, 25 May 2001, Steve Harris wrote:
> > > On Fri, May 25, 2001 at 10:15:05AM +0100, Iain Sandoe wrote:
> > > > If you want to network low-latency audio I think you must find a network
> > > > solution with a reliable physical layer.
> > > Hear, hear. Ethernet just isn't designed to send low latency streams.
> > You can get 100% guaranteed latency and bandwidth with IP over ATM.
> I take it you haven't actually used ATM ;) Its a right pain in the ass.
Actually I do use ATM. It's more a pain in the ass than straight ethernet,
sure.
> Our system suffers from chronic problems when using large numbers of
> tunnels (a common situation), and the hardware is rubbish. Plus no-one
> supports it anymore. Were having to strip out all our ATM kit and replace
> it with gigabit.
Sounds like a fault with the specific vendor you purchased from. One sucky
vendor can't condemn ATM technology as a whole -- that's like saying
ethernet sucks because 3com made sucky ISA NICs back in late 1980's.
> That said, for single point-to-point streams it might be OK, I might
> borrow some of the ATM hardware when it gets checked and test it. There
> must be loads of businesses throwing it out around now, but its kinda
> large, you wouldn't really want it in your house. Would be OK in a studio.
Er... ATM is a *protocol*, not a *physical link layer*. ATM usage is
growing not shrinking and I dont know any businesses "throwing it out".
With the extensive growth of broadband the last 2 years the amount of ATM
deployed has increased substantially and will continue to do so.
-Dan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Fri May 25 2001 - 23:22:53 EEST