Ok, I redid all the tests, while the system was only running my DE and the test, and then again when I put it under duress by running a script that looped "du -h /" and "ls -Ral /usr/" over and over. I ran the script twice to get my proc up a bit to emulate running some intese delays and reverbs or other effects.

Ironically the kernels typically did better when the scripts were running. Personally I think there's a clear advantage with CCRMA's kernel or even just a preempt kernel in the max lat areas. Those max numbers jumped up close to where they were near the beggining of the test if anyone was wondering.

Here's the file with both sets of tests and the uname -a info as requested by Fernando.

-Brian

On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 6:54 AM, Brian Monroe <briancmonroe@gmail.com> wrote:

I'll be sure to include that on the next batch. I used the kernel you after installing the CCRMA repo when you use yum install kernel-rt, which happens to be  3.0.17-1.rt33.1.fc16.ccrma.x86_64.rt. I'll go back and include the other info to the old results when I do the load testing tonight or tomorrow.

On Feb 21, 2012 11:01 PM, "Fernando Lopez-Lezcano" <nando@ccrma.stanford.edu> wrote:
On 02/21/2012 10:47 PM, Fernando Lopez-Lezcano wrote:
On 02/21/2012 10:28 PM, Brian Monroe wrote:
Bah, I forgot to save before I uploaded, here's the text file with the
CCRMA results.

Hi Brain,

Argh, Brian, of course... sorry...

and thanks for testing and sharing the results.
Which CCRMA rt kernel were you testing? It'd be nice if you did an uname
-a before each test...
-- Fernando