[123@qwe]

Hello! I've installed Bodhi linux since v. 1.1 came out and love it! I use it as my main system for almost everything, but music studio. Well, yes, you can install and run jackd, ardour and other good stuff, but without the RT kernel all the good features of linux audio creation software are almost useless. I believe, a real-time kernel would surely make Bodhi the best of the best linux distro. I mean, it's fast, slick, functional, flexible, exceeding in its usability and ergonomics any major linux distro (and I've tried 'em all! ).
I'm not skilled at compiling and/or configuring sources, but surely can help testing a rt-kernel.
BTW, AVLinux team figured out a way of using IRQ Threading instead of applying rt-patches and it seems to work fine. Unfortunately, their kernels do not run well (if at all) on Bodhi, which I prefer.

[bitflow]

Hi, I'm intrested too on this...in linux its a hell to configure everything to get low latency, in mac osx you get 5 or 10 milliseconds latency by default, without tweaking anything..and without drops! This is the reason why i'm planning to buy a mac..even if I love linux, especially bodhi, but I'm a musician, so real time is very important.
It could be nice to know how the apple people have got this..

[123@qwe]

bitflow, on 08 November 2011 - 07:57 PM, said:

Hi, I'm intrested too on this...in linux its a hell to configure everything to get low latency, in mac osx you get 5 or 10 milliseconds latency by default, without tweaking anything..and without drops! This is the reason why i'm planning to buy a mac..even if I love linux, especially bodhi, but I'm a musician, so real time is very important.
It could be nice to know how the apple people have got this..

Hi, bitflow!
It's good to know, I'm not alone here ) I've tried DreamStudio, which is based on Ubuntu 11.04, and they've got it right with the audio latency. Ardour, guitarix, jackd, hydrogen and other work flawlessly with the audio signal, but the whole system is way too sloooowwww, especially when one is used to the swift and lightweight system, like the Bodhi Linux. Well, mac is awesome, but I'm fond of Enlightment environment and miss it, when I get to work with other OSs. I wish the bodhi team would come up with some workaround here...

[Jeff]

Sorry I missed this thread earlier -

There are several real time kernels in the repositories already folks. Perhaps adding one to our software page might be a good idea to make it easier for new users to find.

~Jeff

[123@qwe]

Jeff, on 09 November 2011 - 01:21 PM, said:

Sorry I missed this thread earlier -

There are several real time kernels in the repositories already folks. Perhaps adding one to our software page might be a good idea to make it easier for new users to find.

~Jeff

Hi, Jeff! All the rt-kernels I see in Synaptic are outdated v.2.6.31-32. Those are pretty slow, somewhat buggy and don't support modern hardware well.
I've just installed an excellent abogani lowlatency kernel, and it outperforms anything I've ever tried. I get a latency of 1.4 msec, running jackd2, Hydrogen, guitarix and Ardour with NO x-runs whatsoever!!!
I'm totally amazed how clear, fast, responsive and configurable the BodhiLinux is! Great job, Jeff! Thanx a lot!

[Jeff]

Can you be more specific about which kernel you used from that page so I can build it up and stick it in our repository.

~Jeff

[corazon]

I'm using this, but I got from a debian repo that eludes me at the moment.

http://packages.ubun...-11-rt/download

Nothing to recommend it, beyond the fact that it works on several different distros.

Newer might be better?

[mahmoodkamal]

corazon, on 13 November 2011 - 01:03 PM, said:

I'm using this, but I got from a debian repo that eludes me at the moment.

http://packages.ubun...-11-rt/download

Nothing to recommend it, beyond the fact that it works on several different distros.

Newer might be better?

Hi,

Can someone explain what will happen if a real time kernel is used for normal usage. Apparently, the desktop should feel more responsive? What are the potential drawbacks???

Can anyone shed some light?

Thanks

[corazon]

mahmoodkamal, on 14 November 2011 - 09:38 AM, said:

Hi,

Can someone explain what will happen if a real time kernel is used for normal usage. Apparently, the desktop should feel more responsive? What are the potential drawbacks???

Can anyone shed some light?

Thanks

The main complaint has been that if you have 3d drivers set up on one kernel,
booting into another kernel won't have them, and I seem to recall some folks
using older systems with 3D, had to manually configure Xorg.conf to get past
a command prompt when booting a second kernel. I haven't noticed and strange
behaviour in normal tasks. I would think the benefits will be more easily noticed
on older computers, or when pushing new ones beyond the standard kernels limits.

There are some synthesizer sounds, that one can play a chord with,
but when you hold down the midi keyboards sustain pedal, the system is flooded with
data and takes over the CPU. Using an RT kernel system, the sound plays much longer
before the CPU becomes useless.

Many people argue that most of the speed-ups found in older RT kernels,
have made their way into the newest kernels, and that 'real' RT is no longer a huge benefit.
I may test that in a real-word comparison, to satisfy curiosity.

[Jeff]

A "real time" kernel at this point should only affect audio production.

~Jeff

[123@qwe]

Jeff, on 13 November 2011 - 03:17 AM, said:

Can you be more specific about which kernel you used from that page so I can build it up and stick it in our repository.

~Jeff

Sure! It's 3.0.0.13.15-pae (natty). There is a newer one, v.3.1 built for oneric, which I haven't tried, but it might work just fine too.

mahmoodkamal, on 14 November 2011 - 09:38 AM, said:

Hi,

Can someone explain what will happen if a real time kernel is used for normal usage. Apparently, the desktop should feel more responsive? What are the potential drawbacks???

As Jeff already explained, a real-time or low-latency kernel is required for audio production. And, AFAIC, for the sake of better performance it might be configured and compiled without some portions code. This means, that such a kernel may not support some (rather rare) hardware. That is the only drawback I can think of.