I haven't done much messing with scheduling. It is set at the default ULE
for this machine.
On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 12:11 PM, Adrian Chadd wrote:
> On 25 July 2013 02:51, Wojciech Puchar
> wrote:
> >> improved with a higher kern.hz rating. Unless the future holds an
> emu20k2,
> >> there will
On 25 July 2013 02:51, Wojciech Puchar wrote:
>> improved with a higher kern.hz rating. Unless the future holds an emu20k2,
>> there will be RAM used from the motherboard.
>> 1. I will need a real-time or a faster kernel- hence the high rate wanted-
>> because the devices to be built will be used
improved with a higher kern.hz rating. Unless the future holds an emu20k2,
there will be RAM used from the motherboard.
1. I will need a real-time or a faster kernel- hence the high rate wanted-
because the devices to be built will be used in an active environment: art,
music, audio control.
2. An
When I started with FreeBSD on a G3 B&W, I noticed that the performance
improved with a higher kern.hz rating. Unless the future holds an emu20k2,
there will be RAM used from the motherboard.
1. I will need a real-time or a faster kernel- hence the high rate wanted-
because the devices to be built
Well, why is it reducing latency? That's the thing you should investigate.
Is it because processes aren't getting enough time? or too much time?
Or the audio device isn't getting enough time to run? etc.
-adrian
On 24 July 2013 15:35, Super Bisquit wrote:
> http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/
http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-stable/2009-September/051789.html
This is the thread that I was referring to earlier. Since the patch is for
2009, what are the chances it would work with 10.x or 9.x?
On PowerPC machines with a low MHz rate- or any machine with a CPU rate of
800 MHz or
6 matches
Mail list logo
