Hi Hans,
Thanks for replying. I don't quite understand what you mean by "manually manage". As far as I know, without something like [pd~], there's no way to divide up and assign the Pd audio process to more than one core. Half of the cores on a quad-core are therefore useless to Pd (accounting for the fact that the graphical process gets its own core).
Phil
Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
It would definitely be possible to write a pdpoly~ but usually it would be easier to manually manage 2-4 instances. Few people have more than 4 cores. I see those poly objects as useful for 10+ and make managing 100s or 1000s possible.
.hc
On Sep 8, 2009, at 1:24 PM, Phil Stone wrote:
Hello all,
I have skimmed Miller's paper from Pd-con about [pd~], and it looks like it has potential for taking advantage of multiple-core CPUs. I need to read it in a little more detail to digest it fully, but I'm wondering (and this is directed mostly at Frank B.): could [polypoly] and/or [nqpoly] use [pd~] for each voice/replicated-patch instance?
Phil Stone www.pkstonemusic.com
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
Using ReBirth is like trying to play an 808 with a long stick.
-David Zicarelli