1 |
On 9/29/05, Holly Bostick <motub@××××××.nl> wrote: |
2 |
<SNIP> |
3 |
> > |
4 |
> > Anyway, I hope that helps explain my xrun comments. |
5 |
> > |
6 |
> |
7 |
> OK, sorry not to snip, but your post is a continuous |
8 |
> thought/explanation, and it doesn't seem right-- and I don't top-post |
9 |
> (99% of the time). |
10 |
> |
11 |
> I have several questions mostly leading to the same ultimate end. But |
12 |
> only one is important to express: |
13 |
> |
14 |
> 1) do you actually need X? i.e., is it possible to record audio in the |
15 |
> manner that you do without it? |
16 |
|
17 |
I need X. I run Ardour as well as a number of other audio gui apps. |
18 |
|
19 |
http://www.ardour.org/ |
20 |
|
21 |
> |
22 |
> What occurs to me, looking in from outside, is that while your issues |
23 |
> are clearly known to be kernel-based, and 64-bit based, the fact that |
24 |
> you are using programs that interfere with latency/real-time issues is |
25 |
> obfuscating the entire problem. Certainly if the choice of window |
26 |
> managers has an effect on the severity of the problem. |
27 |
|
28 |
Certainly. And this is not the first time I've been through this |
29 |
having now been using Linux audio for 4 years. Belive me, I've had |
30 |
many machines that didn't work for a while. This experience is not an |
31 |
exception - it's pretty much the rule. |
32 |
|
33 |
Clearly though, in my mind, this current problem is one of two things: |
34 |
|
35 |
1) The recent kernel's are known to produce good results on 32-bit |
36 |
machines while running X. Unfortunately the current patch sets are not |
37 |
building for me as a 64-bit kernel. This could be because of |
38 |
configuration chices I'm making or somethign else. The kernel patch |
39 |
developers will eventually catch up to my issues and things will |
40 |
improve. |
41 |
|
42 |
2) There is a specific hardware or driver problem with the NForce4 |
43 |
motherboard. Possibly the motherboard doesn't work well, or possibly |
44 |
the drivers have some problems. The former is not desired. The later |
45 |
will get attention eventually. |
46 |
|
47 |
> |
48 |
> So clear the waters if you can, because you can't solve a problem that |
49 |
> you can't clearly see the outlines of. |
50 |
> |
51 |
> Can you record audio from the command line? Or do the X-based programs |
52 |
> you use run under DirectFB? What I'm getting at is getting rid of all |
53 |
> the obstructions that could possibly interfere with the kernel and |
54 |
> introduce even more latency issues than what it already has, so that you |
55 |
> (or any devs) can see what problems it already has distinctly enough to |
56 |
> solve them-- or to eliminate them sufficiently so that you can get on |
57 |
> with doing what you do until the kernel stabilizes so you can use it |
58 |
> normally. |
59 |
|
60 |
Good questions. I didn't say this earlier. I probably should have. If |
61 |
I boot this machine into a console mode (i.e. - no xdm/gdm) and run |
62 |
Jack in one console I can log in as root in another console, do |
63 |
emerges all day long and I get no xruns, at least with the small |
64 |
amount of testing I've done so far. This is using 2.6.14-rc2-mm1 so it |
65 |
has some new code but not all of Ingo's stuff. |
66 |
|
67 |
> |
68 |
> I mean, X is a horrible hog, heaven only knows what effect your nVidia |
69 |
> or ATI kernel modules may be having on the ability of the kernel to |
70 |
> behave properly, since they also make demands on the kernel that |
71 |
> 'distract' it, as it were. And if Jack is a daemon (which I know it is), |
72 |
> it's not like it needs X for itself. |
73 |
|
74 |
Right, but as I say, much slower PCs are able to use the standard |
75 |
Gentoo kernel and run Gnome with no xruns. It's only this 3GHz 64-bit |
76 |
machine that has the problem. The sound card has been used in an |
77 |
Athlon XP 1600+ machine and it works fine so I trust its drivers at |
78 |
least in 32-bit mode. |
79 |
> |
80 |
> It's of course quite possible that I'm talking out of my butt, |
81 |
|
82 |
Not the least bit possible. Your thought are clear and very coorect IMO. |
83 |
|
84 |
> since I |
85 |
> am not a member of the Linux audio community, but I do know that the |
86 |
> first step in troubleshooting is to simplify the environment as much as |
87 |
> possible, and then slowly increase the complexity to see when and where |
88 |
> things break down. |
89 |
|
90 |
Absolutely. Hopefully with the additional info above you'll see that |
91 |
is what I've been doing, within my limited abilities to patch kernels, |
92 |
etc. |
93 |
|
94 |
> |
95 |
> Were I you, I would consider: |
96 |
> |
97 |
> - If keeping X, switching to the absolute most minimal wm possible |
98 |
> (twm, ratpoison, ion), to see what effect that had. |
99 |
|
100 |
Right. FVWM, fluxbox, etc. These can just be tested. |
101 |
|
102 |
> - If downstepping from X, investigating what programs run under |
103 |
> DirectFB and seeing what effect that had. |
104 |
> - If going cold-turkey off X, seeing how far you get with the |
105 |
> command-line and ncurses programs. |
106 |
|
107 |
Neither are really acceptable as far as I know today. |
108 |
|
109 |
> |
110 |
> Am I, in fact, talking out of my butt (since it seems that the 'real' |
111 |
> audio community would have tried at least some of this)? Or are there |
112 |
> reasons that this simplification process is not possible for |
113 |
> professional audio recording? |
114 |
|
115 |
As above - see Ardour, Jamin, Muse, Rosegarden, etc. |
116 |
|
117 |
Thanks for your thoughts. They are helpful. |
118 |
|
119 |
Cheers, |
120 |
Mark |
121 |
|
122 |
-- |
123 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |