<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2010/4/5 Tim Blechmann <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:tim@klingt.org">tim@klingt.org</a>></span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="im">> has anyone been using pd~ successfully ?<br>
> I am trying it out, but i get very poor results.<br>
> It seems like a patch loaded with pd~ is a lot heavier than the same<br>
> loaded as a regular abstraction (DIO errors, see also my message "pd~ and<br>
> DIO errors").<br>
> I assumed it would run on another processor core...but does it?<br>
> Is there a way to check this?<br>
<br>
</div>it is the job of the scheduler of the operating system to assign the<br>
processes to different cores. both parent and child process should probably<br>
be pinned to different physical cores. not sure, whether miller took that<br>
into account, though ...<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>What I have tried in the past is run one pd for audio and another one for GEM stuff, which worked rather well.</div><div>I wonder if it would make sense to do the same with 2 pd instances doing audio, and exchange audio between them.</div>
<div>Maybe I could try that with Jack.</div><div>But I think the latency will be doubled, because the buffers of both pd's would add up...?</div><div>gr,</div><div>Tim</div><div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<br>
tim<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
--<br>
<a href="mailto:tim@klingt.org">tim@klingt.org</a><br>
<a href="http://tim.klingt.org" target="_blank">http://tim.klingt.org</a><br>
<br>
Linux is like a wigwam: no windows, no gates, apache inside, stable.<br>
</font></blockquote></div><br>