If blackbox is fast, how does it rank versus Window Maker? Also, is there a performance difference between RH9 and Fedora core test2? Im just downloading the new iso images now, and I hear that FC2 runs the 2.6 kernal, so it sould run fine on my old 700Mhz 384Megs RAM laptop, which is now running rh9 w/ planet ccrma kernal, yes?
I ask because I havent been able to run gem and pd at once without audio pops on screen redraw (and even got pops when I moves the mouse around without gem in complex patches - not dragging anything either!), and I havent been able to get libquicktime and ffmpeg to compile togeather in order to run pdp.
Thats a long and unweildly sentance, is it not?
Lastly, im looking for the next platform to run PD for shows. Im not over buying a desktop, as it seems like more power for the money, but a laptop is preffered. Ive been waiting to get either the new g5 laptop, or the new amd64FX laptop, if either ever come out. Id proabably run linux 2.6 on it. What are peoples dream PD machines. Sence this last question is slightly OT, perhaps emailing me directly is preffered?
thanks, -thewade
there are reports the the 2.6.x kernels are significantly (like 40% sometimes) faster than the 2.4.x kernels.
-josh
thewade wrote:
If blackbox is fast, how does it rank versus Window Maker? Also, is there a performance difference between RH9 and Fedora core test2? Im just downloading the new iso images now, and I hear that FC2 runs the 2.6 kernal, so it sould run fine on my old 700Mhz 384Megs RAM laptop, which is now running rh9 w/ planet ccrma kernal, yes?
I ask because I havent been able to run gem and pd at once without audio pops on screen redraw (and even got pops when I moves the mouse around without gem in complex patches - not dragging anything either!), and I havent been able to get libquicktime and ffmpeg to compile togeather in order to run pdp.
Thats a long and unweildly sentance, is it not?
Lastly, im looking for the next platform to run PD for shows. Im not over buying a desktop, as it seems like more power for the money, but a laptop is preffered. Ive been waiting to get either the new g5 laptop, or the new amd64FX laptop, if either ever come out. Id proabably run linux 2.6 on it. What are peoples dream PD machines. Sence this last question is slightly OT, perhaps emailing me directly is preffered?
thanks, -thewade
PD-list mailing list PD-list@iem.at http://iem.at/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pd-list
On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 08:58:06PM -0800, Josh Steiner wrote:
there are reports the the 2.6.x kernels are significantly (like 40% sometimes) faster than the 2.4.x kernels.
was curious about this, just set up a g3 powermac (266) w/ sid & 2.6.3 and some patches that took about 25% of a 1.4ghz athlon were only using about 40% of the g3. the same computer is more or less unusable with apple's current os...
getting midi working is another issue. the sound is 16bit, was unable to get explicit enough w/ the alsa configuration within pd, in terms of bitdepth/samplerate/device@ etc but telling all that to jack works. as for midi, has anyone gotten 2.6 alsa to recognize devices within pd, without OSS emulation? assuming it shows up in aconnect...some symlink hack in /dev maybe?
If blackbox is fast, how does it rank versus Window Maker? Also, is there a performance difference between RH9 and Fedora core test2?
theyre both lean window managers without much in the way of session management ie taskbar, virtual desktops, file browser..,. try xfce4 & its accompanying wm for that..
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004, Josh Steiner wrote:
there are reports the the 2.6.x kernels are significantly (like 40% sometimes) faster than the 2.4.x kernels.
I would really like to know when this "sometimes" happens :) Surely you can not map the kernel performance to pd performance, if lets say pd spends 1% of its execution time in kernel, 40% improvement would not make pd noticeable faster.
I have heard that a 2.6 kernel has better realtime behaviour than an unpatched 2.4 kernel, which may help in some cases to lower latency.
Guenter
-josh
thewade wrote:
If blackbox is fast, how does it rank versus Window Maker? Also, is there a performance difference between RH9 and Fedora core test2? Im just downloading the new iso images now, and I hear that FC2 runs the 2.6 kernal, so it sould run fine on my old 700Mhz 384Megs RAM laptop, which is now running rh9 w/ planet ccrma kernal, yes?
I ask because I havent been able to run gem and pd at once without audio pops on screen redraw (and even got pops when I moves the mouse around without gem in complex patches - not dragging anything either!), and I havent been able to get libquicktime and ffmpeg to compile togeather in order to run pdp.
Thats a long and unweildly sentance, is it not?
Lastly, im looking for the next platform to run PD for shows. Im not over buying a desktop, as it seems like more power for the money, but a laptop is preffered. Ive been waiting to get either the new g5 laptop, or the new amd64FX laptop, if either ever come out. Id proabably run linux 2.6 on it. What are peoples dream PD machines. Sence this last question is slightly OT, perhaps emailing me directly is preffered?
thanks, -thewade
PD-list mailing list PD-list@iem.at http://iem.at/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pd-list
-- ________________________________________________________________ live experimental electronic music -- http://bluevitriol.com independent u.s. drum'n'bass -- http://vitriolix.com
PD-list mailing list PD-list@iem.at http://iem.at/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pd-list
Hallo, guenter geiger hat gesagt: // guenter geiger wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004, Josh Steiner wrote:
there are reports the the 2.6.x kernels are significantly (like 40% sometimes) faster than the 2.4.x kernels.
I would really like to know when this "sometimes" happens :) Surely you can not map the kernel performance to pd performance, if lets say pd spends 1% of its execution time in kernel, 40% improvement would not make pd noticeable faster.
I have heard that a 2.6 kernel has better realtime behaviour than an unpatched 2.4 kernel, which may help in some cases to lower latency.
I've switched to 2.6 now, and must say 2.6 is very okay. It had problems compared to a LL-patched 2.4 kernel, but a) those problems did'nt affect me and the way I work (I don't do 16-channel, 4 ms latency recordings) and b) from what I've heard, 2.6.3 fixed a lot of these latency problems. Still, for an out-of-the box kernel, 2.6 is impressive and I'd say: totally useable. (Except: I cannot print anymore.)
The new scheduler is wonderful. The system feels faster everywhere, alhough it probably isn't.
ciao
Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org__
Can anyone recommend a good, current Linux distribution for running PD? I've had it with Red Hat!
By the way, your comments have all been very helpful, thanks :) Here's what I had to do - although I won't be recommending RH9 to anyone! After re-installing Red Hat 9 with text-based login, I found that the /etc/sysconfig/desktop file is where the default wm is set. After installing WindoMaker (it doesn't come with Red Hat 9!) I set it to: DESKTOP="WINDOWMAKER"
WindowMaker then became my default wm, the alsa drivers compiled (1.0.2 libs didn't compile, 1.0.1 libs did!) and after installing pd and making aliases for libtk.so.0 and libtcl.so.0 in /usr/lib/ linked to their respective libraries (and libstdc++.so.3 for xsample~ externals) I could launch PD. BUT...
Forget using Red Hat 9!!!The cpu usage was at 45% before I'd even turned audio on in my very-complex patch (compared to 1-3% on Red Hat 7.2) and abstractions took 5 minutes to come up after clicking on them! Unfortunately I don't have the disks for 7.2 any more, so I'm stuck with a 2.2 kernel distribution (Mandrake 7).
Can anyone recommend a current linux distribution for running PD? I've had enough of Red Hat! Peace, Ed
Lone Shark: Aviation. Electronic music for your mind, body and soul! Released March/April 2004 on Pyramid Transmissions. http://www.pyramidtransmissions.com/
-----Original Message----- From: pd-list-admin@iem.at [mailto:pd-list-admin@iem.at]On Behalf Of Frank Barknecht Sent: 25 February 2004 09:37 To: thelist Subject: Re: [PD] Red Hat 9 and PD
Hallo, guenter geiger hat gesagt: // guenter geiger wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004, Josh Steiner wrote:
there are reports the the 2.6.x kernels are significantly (like 40% sometimes) faster than the 2.4.x kernels.
I would really like to know when this "sometimes" happens :) Surely you can not map the kernel performance to pd performance, if lets say pd spends 1% of its execution time in kernel, 40% improvement would not make pd noticeable faster.
I have heard that a 2.6 kernel has better realtime behaviour than an unpatched 2.4 kernel, which may help in some cases to lower latency.
I've switched to 2.6 now, and must say 2.6 is very okay. It had problems compared to a LL-patched 2.4 kernel, but a) those problems did'nt affect me and the way I work (I don't do 16-channel, 4 ms latency recordings) and b) from what I've heard, 2.6.3 fixed a lot of these latency problems. Still, for an out-of-the box kernel, 2.6 is impressive and I'd say: totally useable. (Except: I cannot print anymore.)
The new scheduler is wonderful. The system feels faster everywhere, alhough it probably isn't.
ciao
Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org__
PD-list mailing list PD-list@iem.at http://iem.at/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pd-list
Hallo, Ed Kelly hat gesagt: // Ed Kelly wrote:
Can anyone recommend a good, current Linux distribution for running PD? I've had it with Red Hat!
If you're fed up with RedHat, you might want to go hardcore and install Debian. Generally that's the distribution many people install once and then stay with forever.
ciao
Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org__
Frank Barknecht wrote:
Hallo, Ed Kelly hat gesagt: // Ed Kelly wrote:
Can anyone recommend a good, current Linux distribution for running PD? I've had it with Red Hat!
If you're fed up with RedHat, you might want to go hardcore and install Debian. Generally that's the distribution many people install once and then stay with forever.
no way, man, alot of things don't work in debian, and those debian integrists, pffff.....
install all from sources, tweak your drivers, that's the only i know for linux to actually work.
ciao, sevy
First off: what graphics & sound cards do you have? Just checking, cause as gem relies on opengl if your card doesn't have good linux drivers then a change in linux distro is not the main problem with pd+gem performance. ATI and NVidia have drivers for XFree86 4.2 & 4.3 which give you hardware acceleration under linux.
As for linux distros it depends on your level of linux experience. If you want the most reliable, easy to install/update/use then the only answer is Suse (not a flamebait, just my experience). Most other 'desktop' distros tend to be weak in the install/update bits and Suse gets this just right. Its free to install over FTP.
If you want more optimisation then Gentoo is a good choice. You can custom build the whole distro and set compiler optimisation flags to your hearts content. The only problem is that when you update the packages using their e-merge utility, you have to deal with the config file changes yourself. Whereas with a distro like Suse its done 'automagically' for you.
Finally, if you are really comfortable with linux and have a good bit of time to spare then Debian is great. Total control but sometimes a pain to use...
Finally (really!) the speed increase from 2.4 to 2.6 kernels will be nothing compared to getting your XFree86 drivers set up correctly using the right config. I would make sure you can get your graphics card to use hardware accel. under linux before worrying too much about the 2.6 kernel (plus its scheduling is not of real benefit to desktops. Ive tried to test it and when the machine is under big loads it helps a lot, but not much for normal use).
Hope this helps,
Padraig
Ed Kelly wrote:
Can anyone recommend a good, current Linux distribution for running PD? I've had it with Red Hat!
By the way, your comments have all been very helpful, thanks :) Here's what I had to do - although I won't be recommending RH9 to anyone! After re-installing Red Hat 9 with text-based login, I found that the /etc/sysconfig/desktop file is where the default wm is set. After installing WindoMaker (it doesn't come with Red Hat 9!) I set it to: DESKTOP="WINDOWMAKER"
WindowMaker then became my default wm, the alsa drivers compiled (1.0.2 libs didn't compile, 1.0.1 libs did!) and after installing pd and making aliases for libtk.so.0 and libtcl.so.0 in /usr/lib/ linked to their respective libraries (and libstdc++.so.3 for xsample~ externals) I could launch PD. BUT...
Forget using Red Hat 9!!!The cpu usage was at 45% before I'd even turned audio on in my very-complex patch (compared to 1-3% on Red Hat 7.2) and abstractions took 5 minutes to come up after clicking on them! Unfortunately I don't have the disks for 7.2 any more, so I'm stuck with a 2.2 kernel distribution (Mandrake 7).
Can anyone recommend a current linux distribution for running PD? I've had enough of Red Hat! Peace, Ed
Lone Shark: Aviation. Electronic music for your mind, body and soul! Released March/April 2004 on Pyramid Transmissions. http://www.pyramidtransmissions.com/
-----Original Message----- From: pd-list-admin@iem.at [mailto:pd-list-admin@iem.at]On Behalf Of Frank Barknecht Sent: 25 February 2004 09:37 To: thelist Subject: Re: [PD] Red Hat 9 and PD
Hallo, guenter geiger hat gesagt: // guenter geiger wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004, Josh Steiner wrote:
there are reports the the 2.6.x kernels are significantly (like 40% sometimes) faster than the 2.4.x kernels.
I would really like to know when this "sometimes" happens :) Surely you can not map the kernel performance to pd performance, if lets say pd spends 1% of its execution time in kernel, 40% improvement would not make pd noticeable faster.
I have heard that a 2.6 kernel has better realtime behaviour than an unpatched 2.4 kernel, which may help in some cases to lower latency.
I've switched to 2.6 now, and must say 2.6 is very okay. It had problems compared to a LL-patched 2.4 kernel, but a) those problems did'nt affect me and the way I work (I don't do 16-channel, 4 ms latency recordings) and b) from what I've heard, 2.6.3 fixed a lot of these latency problems. Still, for an out-of-the box kernel, 2.6 is impressive and I'd say: totally useable. (Except: I cannot print anymore.)
The new scheduler is wonderful. The system feels faster everywhere, alhough it probably isn't.
ciao
Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org__
PD-list mailing list PD-list@iem.at http://iem.at/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pd-list
PD-list mailing list PD-list@iem.at http://iem.at/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pd-list
hi
( 04.02.25 14:04 +0000 ) Padraig Kitterick:
If you want more optimisation then Gentoo is a good choice.
i use gentoo and they even had a pd ebuild [i think it's been masked now, so it won't work- too hard to keep up with the releases i'd guess].
i like it and would recommend it. but you'll need to know something about your hardware, and how software works with it to get the most out of it.
also, i'd echo what yves said earlier- 'trust the source, luke'. to get good audio on linux you're going to have to understand a lot of it yourself. this is probably a mostly good thing, and you can get awesome audio- but it takes work.
guenter geiger wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004, Josh Steiner wrote:
there are reports the the 2.6.x kernels are significantly (like 40% sometimes) faster than the 2.4.x kernels.
I would really like to know when this "sometimes" happens :)
ok, here you go:
http://www.infoworld.com/infoworld/article/04/01/30/05FElinux_1.html http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/01/31/1915227&mode=thre...
Surely you can not map the kernel performance to pd performance, if lets say pd spends 1% of its execution time in kernel, 40% improvement would not make pd noticeable faster.
of course not, but many *applications* are getting up to 47% speed
increases... i suspect it has to do with apps that do heavy io access
and have many threads/process... so it may not reflect that much on pd
(until pd is all threaded ;)
I have heard that a 2.6 kernel has better realtime behaviour than an unpatched 2.4 kernel, which may help in some cases to lower latency.
Guenter
yes... everything i ahve heard so far is that the whole system is just much much more responsive. wish i could switch to it (damn you m-audio)
On Wed, Feb 25, 2004 at 03:26:34PM -0800, Josh Steiner wrote:
yes... everything i ahve heard so far is that the whole system is just much much more responsive. wish i could switch to it (damn you m-audio)
I installed a pre-release version of Mandrake 10, with kernel 2.6.2, XFree 4.4 (before it was decided to go back to 4.3), and KDE 3.2. Everything is faster and more responsive; my old computer is happy. I can't use jackstart yet, because the kernel doesn't have the same low latency patches, but I can use jackd and it works well. PD runs very well, even while doing other things like moving windows, playing videos, browsing the net, copying files, etc. :-) -- Marc
I ask because I havent been able to run gem and pd at once without audio pops on screen redraw (and even got pops when I moves the mouse around without gem in complex patches - not dragging anything either!), and I havent been able to get libquicktime and ffmpeg to compile togeather in order to run pdp.
there is a trick with libquicktime and ffmpeg, it would work easily if you'd use libquicktime 0.9.1 ( 0.9.2 brought up all that mess )
cheers, sect
-
carmen -
Dave Phillips -
Ed Kelly -
Frank Barknecht -
guenter geiger -
john saylor -
Josh Steiner -
Marc Lavallée -
Padraig Kitterick -
thewade -
Yves Degoyon