On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 21:57:22 +0100, Paul Davis
<paul@email-addr-hidden> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 3:36 PM, <jonetsu@email-addr-hidden> wrote:
>
>> If a better response time from the kernel is something that's Good, why
>> isn't lowlatency kernels a default in Linux distros (well, at least in
>> Linux Mint and Fedora) If it is So Good, what are the arguments for not
>> having a lowlatency kernel by default ?
>>
>
> latency and bandwidth are opposing goals. server oriented (compute-based
> or storage-based) systems want to have the highest possible bandwidth,
> not
> the lowest latency. generally, at least.
From what I hear, the throughput of for example linux-lowlatency on Ubuntu
is 10% less than with linux-generic. So, that would be bad for servers in
deed.
Also, it is said to use more battery power, but I have not seen any data
on both of these things, so I really have no sources on that.
I do know that kernel developers in Ubuntu aren't interested in using
-lowlatency configs over -generic ones for these sort of reasons.
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-user mailing list
Linux-audio-user@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
Received on Tue Feb 19 00:15:06 2013
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Feb 19 2013 - 00:15:06 EET