Re: [LAU] questions about limits.conf

I think that would make sense that jack's installation automatically
changes limits.conf to whatever they already recommend, wouldn't it? I
think ubuntu package is doing something like this.

2010/12/12 Folderol <folderol@email-addr-hidden>:
> On Sun, 12 Dec 2010 10:10:29 -0500
> Dave Phillips <dlphillips@email-addr-hidden> wrote:
>
>> Greetings,
>>
>> Trying to hammer down the current recommendations for the limits.conf
>> file. Ardour advises that 'memlock unlimited' is a bad idea, but what's
>> the formula for setting that value ?
>>
>> Also, is the 'nice' line still needed ? If so, is there an optimal value ?
>>
>> TIA,
>>
>> dp
>
> My understanding is that Nice has been unnecessary for some time. Also, a lot
> of distros are moving away from the use of limits.conf - don't know what they
> use instead, just that my latest (squeeze) install asked me if I wanted it to
> set up audio when I installed qjackctl and a lot of other audio stuff. I said
> yes, and it did everything for me!
>
> --
> Will J Godfrey
> http://www.musically.me.uk
> Say you have a poem and I have a tune.
> Exchange them and we can both have a poem, a tune, and a song.
> _______________________________________________
> Linux-audio-user mailing list
> Linux-audio-user@email-addr-hidden
> http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
>
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
Received on Sun Dec 12 20:15:04 2010