Re: [LAD] 2.4 vs 2.6

On 7/20/07, Paul Davis <paul@email-addr-hidden> wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-07-20 at 15:31 +0000, arisstotle.52613058@email-addr-hidden
> wrote:
> > I've been working with the 2.6 series kernel now for some time with satisfactory
> > results ie (about 24 msec of latency and solid stability). I chose the 2.6
> > series because its the latest, and I wouldn't have to patch as much to get
> > support for my hardware (firewire alsa realtime etc...). But I've been reading
> > more and more about how the 2.4 kernels can outperform 2.6 when patched properly,
> > any truth to this?
>
> no truth. its an old data point, no longer valid. that is, assuming we
> are talking about RT-patched 2.6 vs. RT-patched 2.4. if you mean vanilla
> 2.6 vs. RT-patched 2.4, the latter is still better.

I'm not sure that is even true any more. No recent data, but I tested jackd
extensively in about the 2.6.7 to 2.6.11 time-frame, and found those vanilla
2.6 kernels quite competitive with RT-patched 2.4 ones, at least on the
machines I was running at the time (all uniprocessors).

The very early 2.6.x kernels were another story. :-)

-- 
 joq
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/linux-audio-dev