Re: [LAD] Linux Audio 2012: Is Linux Audio moving forward?

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
To: Dominique Michel <dominique.michel@...>
Cc: <linux-audio-dev@...>
Date: Thursday, October 11, 2012 - 6:31 pm

--bcaec5396cea908c8b04cbccc6f7
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 1:10 PM, Dominique Michel <
dominique.michel@vtxnet.ch> wrote:

>

I often get things wrong, especially on #jack on IRC. But it irks me to see
people continue to make this claim about jack2. Let me reiterate: the
normal version of jack2 does not and cannot use multiple processors if the
data flow is serialized. Mutiple processors are only used where there is
parallel flow between clients. Although this is not unheard of (e.g. two
synths flowing into a DAW), its unlikely to be the common case for most
users.

Many people find jack2 to be "more stable" because it does not zombify
clients in its default mode operation. It allows clients to be "late" by a
substantial amount, which can result in clicks and pops in their "apparent"
audio stream, but doesn't cause the server to kick them out in the way that
jack1 does. One way to look at this is that jack2 is more tolerant of
programming errors and system latency than jack1.

--p

--bcaec5396cea908c8b04cbccc6f7
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 1:10 PM, Dominiq=
ue Michel <dominique.michel@vtxnet.ch> wrote:

In recent years, the biggest improvement was jack2 on multiprocessor
machines. It is just much more easier to get the job done because the
processor use is lower. This give us also a better stability at high
system load.I often get things wrong, especially =
on #jack on IRC. But it irks me to see people continue to make this claim a=
bout jack2. Let me reiterate: the normal version of jack2 does not and cann=
ot use multiple processors if the data flow is serialized. Mutiple processo=
rs are only used where there is parallel flow between clients. Although thi=
s is not unheard of (e.g. two synths flowing into a DAW), its unlikely to b=
e the common case for most users.
Many people find jack2 to be "more stable" because it does no=
t zombify clients in its default mode operation. It allows clients to be &q=
uot;late" by a substantial amount, which can result in clicks and pops=
in their "apparent" audio stream, but doesn't cause the serv=
er to kick them out in the way that jack1 does. One way to look at this is =
that jack2 is more tolerant of programming errors and system latency than j=
ack1.
--p

--bcaec5396cea908c8b04cbccc6f7--

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
[LAD] Linux Audio 2012: Is Linux Audio moving forward?, Louigi Verona, (Wed Oct 10, 8:24 am)
Re: [LAD] Linux Audio 2012: Is Linux Audio moving forward?, Dominique Michel, (Thu Oct 11, 4:13 pm)
Re: [LAD] Linux Audio 2012: Is Linux Audio moving forward?, Paul Davis, (Thu Oct 11, 6:31 pm)
Re: [LAD] Linux Audio 2012: Is Linux Audio moving forward?, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky, (Wed Oct 10, 8:40 pm)