| 1 |
Eh? Like to destroy filesystems? Not sure what nitro you're talking about... |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
On 10/4/05, Mark Knecht <markknecht@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> On 10/4/05, Hemmann, Volker Armin <volker.armin.hemmann@××××××××××××.de> |
| 6 |
> wrote: |
| 7 |
> > On Wednesday 05 October 2005 03:37, Jared Lindsay wrote: |
| 8 |
> > > I really like nitro-sources. They aren't supported in any official |
| 9 |
> way, but |
| 10 |
> > > you can find them in the Unsupported Software section on the Gentoo |
| 11 |
> Forums. |
| 12 |
> > > The current release is 2.6.13.2-nitro1 ("Down with latency"), but I |
| 13 |
> would |
| 14 |
> > > maybe advise waiting until nitro2 comes out (seppe, the maintainer, |
| 15 |
> said it |
| 16 |
> > > would hopefully be soon), as it will fix a lagging issue with the ck5 |
| 17 |
> > > patchset. |
| 18 |
> > |
| 19 |
> > nitro? |
| 20 |
> > aren't that the ones who like to destroy filesystems? |
| 21 |
> > |
| 22 |
> > btw - lower latency = lower throughput = lower overall performance. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> lower latency = lower throughput == YES |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
> lower throughput = lower overall performance == NOT NECESSARILY |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> It depends on how you measure performance. For me performance means |
| 29 |
> that real time audio, such as vocals from a singer, flow through the |
| 30 |
> machine without being delayed enough for the singer to hear the delay. |
| 31 |
> That's performance since without it the machine is useless. |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> Granted, I get fewer MIPS, etc., but the machine's performance, as I |
| 34 |
> measure it, is higher. |
| 35 |
> |
| 36 |
> Cheers, |
| 37 |
> Mark |
| 38 |
> |
| 39 |
> -- |
| 40 |
> gentoo-amd64@g.o mailing list |
| 41 |
> |
| 42 |
> |
Archives