hi,
i have one instance of pd running with -rt -jack etc... for audio. the other -nrt for gem (cannot have gem and audio in the same instance of pd = glitches). i want to send the output of snapshot~ to gem. what would be the best way knowing that speed matters:
mrpeach/osc - mrpeach/net netreceive / netsend or another way?
thanks - it's a faq, sorry, cannot find the answer. pat
talking about it on #dataflow, patko and claudiusmaximus agree on using udp. i will use mrpeach/net external for this.
pat
patrick wrote:
talking about it on #dataflow, patko and claudiusmaximus agree on using udp. i will use mrpeach/net external for this.
as i haven't followed the discussion on IRC, i would be interested in how come?
afaics, using mrpeach/net will reduce the network bandwidth eventually at the cost of CPU-power. since you seem to be on a super-local network (communicating via the loopback device on a "non-networked" machine) , the bandwidth shouldn't really be an issue (as you re not sending gigabytes of data in a few ms). for very simple data-type (e.g. just sending single bytes), the mrpeach/net objects should perform better than [netsend], but when sending more complex data (e.g. floats) this need not be the case. i haven't done any benchmarking at all; i just assume that converting floats to bytes in pd-vanilla is rather complicated (if doable with "commensurable" effort) obviously you can use more helper externals e.g. mrpeach/osc to do the conversion for you in a more efficient way.
note that i personally use mrpeach/net + mrpeach/osc quite a lot; but you should ask yourself (or the list;-) which is what you originally did) what are the benefits and what are the drawbacks of using externals?
all in all: what do you think you will gain from using an external rather than a built-in for communicating data?
fmdasdr IOhannes
Frank Barknecht wrote:
Hallo, patrick hat gesagt: // patrick wrote:
talking about it on #dataflow, patko and claudiusmaximus agree on using udp. i will use mrpeach/net external for this.
You can use UDP with netsend/netreceive as well, just give it an argument of 1.
ah thanks frank for pointing out the actual meaning of pat's email; i seem to have skipped the udp part...
fgamrd IOhannes
Hallo, IOhannes m zmoelnig hat gesagt: // IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
Frank Barknecht wrote:
Hallo, patrick hat gesagt: // patrick wrote:
talking about it on #dataflow, patko and claudiusmaximus agree on using udp. i will use mrpeach/net external for this.
You can use UDP with netsend/netreceive as well, just give it an argument of 1.
ah thanks frank for pointing out the actual meaning of pat's email; i seem to have skipped the udp part...
However I do think, that netsend/receive could need some work. Sending many messages in short time can lead to some nasty dropouts even on localhost with UDP with netsend. I once replaced netsend with a clone based on sendOSC and was sending the same amount of messages just fine then. I didn't dig deeper at that time but I suspect that there is room for improvement in netsend even when keeping its current FUDI interface.
Ciao
Frank
I'm agree with this, and not only with [netsend]. Sending datas using
PHP (FUDI messages) to a [netreceive] (TCP or UDP) cause sometimes
dropouts. I am forced to open and to close connection often to see
things work properly.
Maybe a [netreceive] problem ?
++
Jack
Le 21 août 08 à 10:42, Frank Barknecht a écrit :
Hallo, IOhannes m zmoelnig hat gesagt: // IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:
Frank Barknecht wrote:
Hallo, patrick hat gesagt: // patrick wrote:
talking about it on #dataflow, patko and claudiusmaximus agree
on using udp. i will use mrpeach/net external for this.You can use UDP with netsend/netreceive as well, just give it an argument of 1.
ah thanks frank for pointing out the actual meaning of pat's email; i seem to have skipped the udp part...
However I do think, that netsend/receive could need some work. Sending many messages in short time can lead to some nasty dropouts even on localhost with UDP with netsend. I once replaced netsend with a clone based on sendOSC and was sending the same amount of messages just fine then. I didn't dig deeper at that time but I suspect that there is
room for improvement in netsend even when keeping its current FUDI
interface.Ciao
Frank
Pd-list@iem.at mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/ listinfo/pd-list
my solution is [import mrpeach] udpsend / udpreceive
but i was not able to send a float, so i am using also packOSC / unpackOSC - pipelist - routeOSC
pat
-
Frank Barknecht -
IOhannes m zmoelnig -
Jack -
patrick