2010/4/5 Tim Blechmann
<tim@klingt.org>
> has anyone been using pd~ successfully ?
> I am trying it out, but i get very poor results.
> It seems like a patch loaded with pd~ is a lot heavier than the same
> loaded as a regular abstraction (DIO errors, see also my message "pd~ and
> DIO errors").
> I assumed it would run on another processor core...but does it?
> Is there a way to check this?
it is the job of the scheduler of the operating system to assign the
processes to different cores. both parent and child process should probably
be pinned to different physical cores. not sure, whether miller took that
into account, though ...
What I have tried in the past is run one pd for audio and another one for GEM stuff, which worked rather well.
I wonder if it would make sense to do the same with 2 pd instances doing audio, and exchange audio between them.
Maybe I could try that with Jack.
But I think the latency will be doubled, because the buffers of both pd's would add up...?
gr,
Tim
tim
--
tim@klingt.org
http://tim.klingt.org
Linux is like a wigwam: no windows, no gates, apache inside, stable.