>> s.
>
> well, as i said, it was nothing really conclusive (i'm not going to waste much time to go from 128/2 to 64/2, diminishing returns...), and my box is generally under-powered for what i do with it.
>
> in short, i figured it's not significant really. i merely added this here in case there's a general picture emerging... it wasn't even intended as criticism.
>
> and even if it turned out jack2 would be one step worse than jack1, that's not at all a big price to pay for smp imho. same with the kernel: an smp build does degrade performance on an up box, but who cares, really? you can't even buy up workstations any more, and nature dictates that single-core performance has hit its limit...
>
> luck has it that my mobo just got fried, so chances are i'll be contributing some nice quad-core data in the near future - if only my customers paid their bills on time...
>
>
> best,
>
> jörn
>
The point is not "criticism" or not ((-: , but if i can get any useful info to see if a real problem still exist or if any kind of regression between 2 versions has happened somewhere..
Stéphane
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Received on Thu Jan 28 00:15:06 2010
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Jan 28 2010 - 00:15:06 EET