Subject: Re: [linux-audio-user] Re: linux-audio-user Digest, Vol 10, Issue 55
From: Lee Revell (rlrevell_AT_joe-job.com)
Date: Wed Jul 14 2004 - 20:47:18 EEST
On Wed, 2004-07-14 at 11:58, Mark Knecht wrote:
> Markus Schwarzenberg wrote:
> > On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 10:44:44 -0700 (PDT) Brian Redfern
> > <bredfern_AT_calarts.edu> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>2.6 on suse is also different than 2.6 fedora, because suse has a
> >>couple of audio programmers who work to make sure their kernel works
> >>with audio, so I can use all my audio apps out of the box with 9.2,
> >>and the 2.6 kernel, without latency problems, and without needing a
> >>kernel recompile.
> >
> >
> > Suse 9.2 ? I thought they are at 9.1, currently - no hints to 9.2 on
> > their web site (It's funny, there are some more "suse 9.2" google matches).
> >
> > So, apparently suse 9.1 does have an audio friendly kernel?
> >
>
> I believe that Takashi-san works for Suse. He recently posted a paper
> showing some latency numbers for different distributions. Suse did quite
> well as I remember. It was my impression that this was not an accident
> and that he had played a part in making sure this was true.
>
> It made me briefly consider trying Suse out... ;-0
>
Speaking of which, can someone from SuSe somment on whether they use a
modified ReiserFS? The tests I have been running (see my recent posts
to linux-kernel) showed some latency problems with reiserfs that I did
not see with ext3. There was a latency-related thread on LKML in March
where Takashi mentioned a few changes to reiserfs that would give
excellent latency.
It seems very likely that with these changes, reiserfs is just as good
as ext3. I have not heard much from the reiserfs advocates on this
issue.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Wed Jul 14 2004 - 21:24:16 EEST