So I had a beer with hansomepirate(jdulaney), who is, or was on the kernel
sig, last night and we got to talking about a RT kernel.
Last time we talked to the kernel folks about an rt kernel, they weren't
impressed with the "need" for Fedora, but that was before the Spin was
Now might be a good time to raise this issue again? I dug through my
archives and found this thread. Now that we have an actual spin that's out,
we can actually redo some of the testing to have more realistic tests.
(multitrack with effects)
I feel like right now, it's one of the few benefits that the ubuntu studio
folks have (or at least claim to have) over us. The other is some
semi-proprietary software that on... you know what, never mind it's getting
Anyways, does the list think this is worth pursuing?
On Wed Feb 22 2012 at 9:10:29 PM Brian Monroe <briancmonroe(a)gmail.com>
Ok, I redid all the tests, while the system was only running my DE
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
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
Here's the file with both sets of tests and the uname -a info as requested
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 6:54 AM, Brian Monroe <briancmonroe(a)gmail.com>
> 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(a)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
>>>> 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