CCRMA kernel in FC5?

[thewade]

Hello,

I am seriously looking at upgrading to FC5 primarily because it is 
reported to be an openGL 2.0 compliant system and Gem (a visualization 
labrary for PD) is now requiring openGL 2.0 for full Gem functionality.

But I am a long time CCRMA fan and the packages and kernel offered by 
CCRMA for FC4 really make my musical life easier. And so I ask: is 
there an FC5 CCRMA kernel and packages repository yet?

I would really love to not have to go back to building my own kernels 
using Ingo M.'s patches and then having to build all my sound tools 
myself using rpmbuild.

Thank you all,
-wade

[Anthony Green]

On Sat, 2006-05-20 at 15:56 -0700, thewade wrote:
>  But I am a long time CCRMA fan and the packages and kernel offered by
>
>  CCRMA for FC4 really make my musical life easier. And so I ask: is 
>  there an FC5 CCRMA kernel and packages repository yet? 
I don't think there's a kernel, but there are other packages. See:

http://ccrma.stanford.edu/planetccrma/mirror/fedora/linux/planetccrma/5/i...

A couple of those packages have subsequently been merged into Fedora
Extras.  jack-audio-connection-kit just found a Extras sponsor today, so
I expect many other packages should be arriving in Extras soon.

>  I would really love to not have to go back to building my own kernels
>
>  using Ingo M.'s patches and then having to build all my sound tools 
>  myself using rpmbuild. 
The stock kernel works well enough for me.  Just follow the directions
in /usr/share/doc/jack-audio-connection-kit-0.101.1/README.Fedora.

AG

[Florin Andrei]

On Sat, 2006-05-20 at 16:31 -0700, Anthony Green wrote:

>  The stock kernel works well enough for me. 
+1

Didn't use a customized kernel in a very long time.

-- 
Florin Andrei

http://florin.myip.org/

[thewade]

Quoting Florin Andrei <florin(a)andrei.myip.org&gt;:

>  On Sat, 2006-05-20 at 16:31 -0700, Anthony Green wrote:
>
> > The stock kernel works well enough for me.
>
>  +1
>
>  Didn't use a customized kernel in a very long time. 
I do some heavy realtime signal processing in PD and I found that the 
realtime.so kernel module allowed my applications to run at a higher 
priority then gnome and everything else. This removed many problems I 
had when I was processing something and dragged or changed windows for 
example. I set a guid for my audio apps and my system processing 
capabilities improved dramaticaly.

As far as I know the realtime kernel module, sometimes called the LSM 
module, is not a part of the mainline Fedora Core kernel(s). Is it now? 
It used to require a PAM patch and I think a rebuild of the kernel.

If I wasn't doing realtime stuff then I would probably agree with you.

Thanks for the help!
-thewade

[Callum Lerwick]

On Sat, 2006-05-20 at 20:56 -0700, thewade wrote:
>  As far as I know the realtime kernel module, sometimes called the LSM
>
>  module, is not a part of the mainline Fedora Core kernel(s). Is it now? 
>  It used to require a PAM patch and I think a rebuild of the kernel. 
From what I remember reading in Kernel Traffic, upstream didn't like the
LSM approach. They came up with the rlimit approach instead, which has
been merged upstream and is supported in FC5. That's what we're using in
jack's README.Fedora.

>  If I wasn't doing realtime stuff then I would probably agree with
> you. 
How low do you need to go?

On my Athlon 64 3000+ system, I can run jack reliably at a period size
of 256, on the motherboard's cheezy onboard sound. Any lower and it
overruns like mad. Which makes sense, according to qjackcontrol that's a
latency of 10.7ms at 48khz. Given the stock kernel has a 250hz timer,
that gives you a nyquist scheduling frequency of 125hz, which is a
period of 8ms. With a stock kernel I don't think we can go any lower
than 8ms.

I think that's probably good enough for most users. Maybe CCRMA can
continue to supply kernels for those who demand more. Now if only I
could get Rosegarden to stop complaining...

Packaging alternative kernels in Extras is a can of worms I don't think
anyone is in a rush to open. But as far as I know its not yet totally
out of the question...

[thewade]

Quoting Callum Lerwick <seg(a)haxxed.com&gt;:

>  On Sat, 2006-05-20 at 20:56 -0700, thewade wrote:
> > As far as I know the realtime kernel module, sometimes called the LSM
> > module, is not a part of the mainline Fedora Core kernel(s). Is it now?
> > It used to require a PAM patch and I think a rebuild of the kernel.
>
>  From what I remember reading in Kernel Traffic, upstream didn't like the
>  LSM approach. They came up with the rlimit approach instead, which has
>  been merged upstream and is supported in FC5. That's what we're using in
>  jack's README.Fedora. 
No no, I am wrong and you are right. I remember this, that rlimits was 
preffered over the LSM module. Great!

> > If I wasn't doing realtime stuff then I would probably agree
> with you.
>
>  How low do you need to go?
>
>  On my Athlon 64 3000+ system, I can run jack reliably at a period size
>  of 256, on the motherboard's cheezy onboard sound. Any lower and it
>  overruns like mad. Which makes sense, according to qjackcontrol that's a
>  latency of 10.7ms at 48khz. Given the stock kernel has a 250hz timer,
>  that gives you a nyquist scheduling frequency of 125hz, which is a
>  period of 8ms. With a stock kernel I don't think we can go any lower
>  than 8ms. 
I am using and Athalon 64 3400+ in i386 mode because PD doesn't handle 
64 bit tables well yet, and a Hammerfall HDSP card. I would be 
satisified with less then 10ms (I think I am between 5ms and 8ms now) 
because that still allows me to do a large amount of processing without 
too much lag for live performances. Any lower and the numper of 
computations I can do without generating XRUNS decreases. Any higher 
and there starts to be an echo or slapback effect when I play live 
(which sadly doesnt happen much these days).

>  I think that's probably good enough for most users. Maybe CCRMA
> can
>  continue to supply kernels for those who demand more. Now if only I
>  could get Rosegarden to stop complaining... 
I haven't used rosegarden. Its primarily MIDI stuff, right?
I use PD, Audacity, and I am learning Ardour. PD rocks but the other 
two still need a few UI improvements to be the Soundforge and Sonar I 
am used too in Winblows land. Also I need to put linux on my iPod so I 
can play flac files...

>  Packaging alternative kernels in Extras is a can of worms I don't
> think
>  anyone is in a rush to open. But as far as I know its not yet totally
>  out of the question... 
I have no problem adding the CCRMA repo to my yum.repos.d directory, as 
I do now with FC4. What is the advantage of including CCRMA in Fedora 
Extras? Just default install inclusion I imagine.

-wade

[Anthony Green]

On Sat, 2006-05-20 at 23:47 -0700, thewade wrote:
>  I have no problem adding the CCRMA repo to my yum.repos.d directory,
> as 
>  I do now with FC4. What is the advantage of including CCRMA in Fedora 
>  Extras? Just default install inclusion I imagine. 
Off the top of my head..

- It's easier for more people to contribute

- It should eliminate the problem of conflicts between Core/Extras and
PlanetCCRMA 

- It should eliminate the lag between an FC release and package
availability

- It should be easier to support non-x86 hosts (PPC, for instance)

The downside is that each package has to go through a relatively lengthy
review process before it can get included.  However, in my limited
experience, packages are usually better off for having gone through this
review.  For instance, see what I'm going through with ardour...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=189315

AG

[thewade]

I have sucuessfuly install fedora core 5 but I can't seem to run yum -y 
update because of my ccrma yum repo. Could someone give me an iea of 
how my planetCCRMA.repo should look? I ask because the url Fernando 
posted looks different the the url's in my repo that worked for FC4.

My planetCCRMA.repo:
[os]
name=Fedora Core $releasever - $basearch - Updates
baseurl=http://ccrma.stanford.edu/planetccrma/repodata/fedora/$releasever...
enabled=1
gpgcheck=1
gpgkey=http://ccrma.stanford.edu/planetccrma/apt/configuration/all/RPM-GP...

[updates]
name=Fedora Core $releasever - $basearch - Updates
baseurl=http://ccrma.stanford.edu/planetccrma/repodata/fedora/$releasever...
enabled=1
gpgcheck=1
gpgkey=http://ccrma.stanford.edu/planetccrma/apt/configuration/all/RPM-GP...

[planetccrma]
name=Fedora Core $releasever - $basearch - Planet CCRMA Apps
baseurl=http://ccrma.stanford.edu/planetccrma/repodata/fedora/$releasever...
enabled=1
gpgcheck=1
gpgkey=http://ccrma.stanford.edu/planetccrma/apt/configuration/all/RPM-GP...

[planetcore]
name=Fedora Core $releasever - $basearch - Planet CCRMA Core
baseurl=http://ccrma.stanford.edu/planetccrma/repodata/fedora/$releasever...
enabled=1
gpgcheck=1
gpgkey=http://ccrma.stanford.edu/planetccrma/apt/configuration/all/RPM-GP...

[planetedge]
name=Fedora Core $releasever - $basearch - Planet CCRMA Core
baseurl=http://ccrma.stanford.edu/planetccrma/repodata/fedora/$releasever...
enabled=1
gpgcheck=1
gpgkey=http://ccrma.stanford.edu/planetccrma/apt/configuration/all/RPM-GP...

And the latest version of Gem works in FC5 without disabeling ARB! 
Sweet! Now to test audio...

THanks all!
-wade

[Fernando Lopez-Lezcano]

On Sat, 27 May 2006, thewade wrote:
>  I have sucuessfuly install fedora core 5 but I can't seem to run
> yum -y 
>  update because of my ccrma yum repo. Could someone give me an iea of how my 
>  planetCCRMA.repo should look? I ask because the url Fernando posted looks 
>  different the the url's in my repo that worked for FC4. 
It is different, the fc5 url is inside the repository itself and not a 
separate directory as before.

See this for some instructions:
  http://ccrma-mail.stanford.edu/pipermail/planetccrmanews/2006-May/000034....
Install the configuration package and you should be up and running.

-- Fernando


>  My planetCCRMA.repo:
>  [os]
>  name=Fedora Core $releasever - $basearch - Updates
>  baseurl=http://ccrma.stanford.edu/planetccrma/repodata/fedora/$releasever...
>  enabled=1
>  gpgcheck=1
>
> gpgkey=http://ccrma.stanford.edu/planetccrma/apt/configuration/all/RPM-GP...
>
>  [updates]
>  name=Fedora Core $releasever - $basearch - Updates
>  baseurl=http://ccrma.stanford.edu/planetccrma/repodata/fedora/$releasever...
>  enabled=1
>  gpgcheck=1
>
> gpgkey=http://ccrma.stanford.edu/planetccrma/apt/configuration/all/RPM-GP...
>
>  [planetccrma]
>  name=Fedora Core $releasever - $basearch - Planet CCRMA Apps
>  baseurl=http://ccrma.stanford.edu/planetccrma/repodata/fedora/$releasever...
>  enabled=1
>  gpgcheck=1
>
> gpgkey=http://ccrma.stanford.edu/planetccrma/apt/configuration/all/RPM-GP...
>
>  [planetcore]
>  name=Fedora Core $releasever - $basearch - Planet CCRMA Core
>  baseurl=http://ccrma.stanford.edu/planetccrma/repodata/fedora/$releasever...
>  enabled=1
>  gpgcheck=1
>
> gpgkey=http://ccrma.stanford.edu/planetccrma/apt/configuration/all/RPM-GP...
>
>  [planetedge]
>  name=Fedora Core $releasever - $basearch - Planet CCRMA Core
>  baseurl=http://ccrma.stanford.edu/planetccrma/repodata/fedora/$releasever...
>  enabled=1
>  gpgcheck=1
>
> gpgkey=http://ccrma.stanford.edu/planetccrma/apt/configuration/all/RPM-GP...
>
>  And the latest version of Gem works in FC5 without disabeling ARB! Sweet! Now 
>  to test audio...
>
>  THanks all!
>  -wade
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  Fedora-music-list mailing list
>  Fedora-music-list(a)redhat.com
>  http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-music-list
>

[Fernando Lopez-Lezcano]

On Sat, 2006-05-20 at 16:31 -0700, Anthony Green wrote:
>  On Sat, 2006-05-20 at 15:56 -0700, thewade wrote:
>  > But I am a long time CCRMA fan and the packages and kernel offered by 
>  > CCRMA for FC4 really make my musical life easier. And so I ask: is 
>  > there an FC5 CCRMA kernel and packages repository yet?
>  
>  I don't think there's a kernel, but there are other packages. See:
>  
>
> http://ccrma.stanford.edu/planetccrma/mirror/fedora/linux/planetccrma/5/i...
But also look at...

http://ccrma.stanford.edu/planetccrma/mirror/fedora/linux/planetcore/5/i3...

>  A couple of those packages have subsequently been merged into Fedora
>  Extras.  jack-audio-connection-kit just found a Extras sponsor today, so
>  I expect many other packages should be arriving in Extras soon.
>  
>  > I would really love to not have to go back to building my own kernels 
>  > using Ingo M.'s patches and then having to build all my sound tools 
>  > myself using rpmbuild.
>  
>  The stock kernel works well enough for me.  Just follow the directions
>  in /usr/share/doc/jack-audio-connection-kit-0.101.1/README.Fedora. 
Nit picking, of course, those directions only tell you how to get memory
locking and realtime scheduler access as a normal non-root user. Those
have been a given for Planet CCRMA users for quite a while :-) While for
many users the stock kernel will be enough, those that want to use very
small buffers for good realtime response for synthesis or digital signal
processing will find the standard kernel will not be enough (ie: they
will experience more xruns than with one patched with Ingo's kernel)

-- Fernando

[Fernando Lopez-Lezcano]

On Sat, 2006-05-20 at 15:56 -0700, thewade wrote:
>  Hello,
>  
>  I am seriously looking at upgrading to FC5 primarily because it is 
>  reported to be an openGL 2.0 compliant system and Gem (a visualization 
>  labrary for PD) is now requiring openGL 2.0 for full Gem functionality.
>  
>  But I am a long time CCRMA fan and the packages and kernel offered by 
>  CCRMA for FC4 really make my musical life easier. And so I ask: is 
>  there an FC5 CCRMA kernel and packages repository yet? 
Yes, there is one (or rather, two). 

>  I would really love to not have to go back to building my own kernels
>
>  using Ingo M.'s patches and then having to build all my sound tools 
>  myself using rpmbuild. 
The install stuff has not made it to the web site yet, it was advertised
in the Planet CCRMA mailing lists, see this thread:

http://ccrma-mail.stanford.edu/pipermail/planetccrmanews/2006-May/000034....

That should get you started...
Enjoy!
-- Fernando