Re: [LAD] 2.4 vs 2.6

--- joq@email-addr-hidden wrote:
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 its an old data point, no longer valid.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
>

when
you all say RT Patched you mean realtime module built, loaded configured and
used by jack correct?
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/linux-audio-dev
Received on Sun Jul 22 08:15:01 2007