From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EL2D0-0007wN-Id for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 29 Sep 2005 17:28:38 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with SMTP id j8THIkAp004449; Thu, 29 Sep 2005 17:18:46 GMT Received: from xproxy.gmail.com (xproxy.gmail.com [66.249.82.205]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id j8TH97sb014820 for ; Thu, 29 Sep 2005 17:09:08 GMT Received: by xproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id t6so161917wxc for ; Thu, 29 Sep 2005 10:16:32 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=OfPtzRn4c8xXxYah9Q4o+JlIGEzimJX7gkCL4YbG3yTeoqsv0JTgQQEJs0m7FDBTvFjb01B3nVMtdWZkkLctpan7d65YJPknCT8ZuoGbpF1Xx9qQijqIks7vMlqjhcU6F2dKWKJRk4MPeEK9BdS8JShle5Kd5WdXmBHYFJs4RNE= Received: by 10.70.8.3 with SMTP id 3mr499861wxh; Thu, 29 Sep 2005 10:16:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.70.11.7 with HTTP; Thu, 29 Sep 2005 10:16:32 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <5bdc1c8b050929101666311ffc@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2005 10:16:32 -0700 From: Mark Knecht To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] [Completely and totally OT] FVWM-Crystal...!!! In-Reply-To: <002101c5c50f$8e8cf170$4501010a@jnetlab.lcl> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline References: <433C0B08.4040407@planet.nl> <002101c5c50f$8e8cf170$4501010a@jnetlab.lcl> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by robin.gentoo.org id j8TH97sb014820 X-Archives-Salt: 1fedab0f-0154-4263-a85b-19ae60d77896 X-Archives-Hash: f4a2d6aba3bf13a73d88cd09e508629d On 9/29/05, Dave Nebinger wrote: > > Were I you, I would consider: > > > > - If keeping X, switching to the absolute most minimal wm possible > > (twm, ratpoison, ion), to see what effect that had. > > - If downstepping from X, investigating what programs run under > > DirectFB and seeing what effect that had. > > - If going cold-turkey off X, seeing how far you get with the > > command-line and ncurses programs. > > I would also add the following: remoting X. X is a hog, as Holly said, but > there's no reason the X server would need to run on the same box as the > ongoing recording session. > > Running two systems, one running X and handling the gui operations, and one > running your audio apps, might provide enough of the separation to reduce > the latency on the audio box. Of course the two cards should probably be > connected with at least a 100mb Ethernet connection (to eliminate the > overhead of dealing with the network conversations for X). This is an interesting idea actually. I currently run two boxes anyway. All audio is connected between them using ADAT optical (i.e. - red laser) or spdif so I've got 26 digital audio channels going across. Maybe running remotely could solve some of this. Thanks. > > Another possibility might be your choice of filesystems (assuming the > recordings are going to disk). Different filesystems have inherent latency > based upon their design - journaling adds overhead, btree maintenance in > reiser adds overhead, etc. Just using a simple ext2 filesystem for the > initial recording followed by backups to a modern filesystem may have a > measurable impact. In fact it does. I wrote a short online paper about that a few years ago. I use ext3. > > Going back to X, it is a hog both in cpu cycles and in memory; you mention > having an amd64 but no quotes on memory. My assumption is that such a > system has a big chunk of memory, but I've learned what happens when one > assumes. Obviously a lack of sufficient memory can cause you some swapping > issues whether you were aware of it or not. Thisis a good point also. The machine has 512MB. This has been more than enough on my previous 32-bit machines, but on this AMD64 running the Gentoo 64-bit kernel it seems that memory usage is significantly higher. On the 32-bit machine I seem to use about 300-350MB by the time I have Gnome up and maybe Firefox open. I alomost have never seen swapping. On the AMD64 I'm seeing 450-500MB and a small amount of swapping every day. I'm unclear about the 64-bit environment anyway. OK, it's 64-bit, but I also have a pile of emulation libraries emerged to take care of dependencies. I don't know when they are getting used, except for the 32-bit Firefox I'm running so that I get more multimedia stuff. Anyway, more memory may well be a good thing to do. Thanks for the ideas. -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list