On Tue, Mar 14, 2006 at 02:13:59PM -0500, Lee Revell wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-03-14 at 19:56 +0100, torbenh@email-addr-hidden wrote:
> > so you say that i should not htonl the floats i copy from my net
> > buffer
> > to the jack-port ?
> > i doubt, this is a great performance impact.
> >
>
> These were just suggestions... of course the performance impact is
> small. But when a code path will be called on every sample then even a
> 0.01% speedup is worthwhile.
well i dont think, that doing something simple with the data being
copied does cost anything. you can prove me wrong though...
the memory is the bottleneck. or is this pathetic because of 98% cache
hits ?
>
> > when i change the packet format next time, i could change that to byte
> > swap on a PPC. but considering that PPCs are generally slower than x86
> > nowadays, this would create more cpu load on a jack-network.
> >
> > i am puzzled. did anybody actually test it ?
> > well at least there is some netjack thread now :/
> >
>
> Well, you did post your announcement to a development list - if you only
> wanted testers you should have only sent to LAU ;-)
:) that explains it....
>
> Lee
>
-- torben Hohn http://galan.sourceforge.net -- The graphical Audio languageReceived on Wed Mar 15 00:15:06 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Mar 15 2006 - 00:15:06 EET