[PD] Red Hat 9 and PD

Frank Barknecht fbar at footils.org
Wed Feb 25 10:36:37 CET 2004

guenter geiger hat gesagt: // guenter geiger wrote:

> On Tue, 24 Feb 2004, Josh Steiner wrote:
> > there are reports the the 2.6.x kernels are significantly (like 40%
> > sometimes) faster than the 2.4.x kernels.
> I would really like to know when this "sometimes" happens :)
> Surely you can not map the kernel performance to pd performance,
> if lets say pd spends 1% of its execution time in kernel, 40%
> improvement would not make pd noticeable faster.
> I have heard that a 2.6 kernel has better realtime behaviour than
> an unpatched 2.4 kernel, which may help in some cases to lower
> latency.

I've switched to 2.6 now, and must say 2.6 is very okay. It had
problems compared to a LL-patched 2.4 kernel, but a) those problems
did'nt affect me and the way I work (I don't do 16-channel, 4 ms
latency recordings) and b) from what I've heard, 2.6.3 fixed a lot of
these latency problems.  Still, for an out-of-the box kernel, 2.6 is
impressive and I'd say: totally useable. (Except: I cannot print

The new scheduler is wonderful. The system feels faster everywhere,
alhough it probably isn't.

 Frank Barknecht                               _ ______footils.org__

More information about the Pd-list mailing list