From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Nov 18 09:41:58 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A58C316A4CE for ; Thu, 18 Nov 2004 09:41:58 +0000 (GMT) Received: from galaxy.uci.agh.edu.pl (galaxy.uci.agh.edu.pl [149.156.96.9]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C19FE43D4C for ; Thu, 18 Nov 2004 09:41:57 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from kkowalik@uci.agh.edu.pl) Received: by galaxy.uci.agh.edu.pl (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 6EDF8AF442; Thu, 18 Nov 2004 10:41:56 +0100 (CET) Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 10:41:56 +0100 From: Krzysztof Kowalik To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20041118094156.GA12415@uci.agh.edu.pl> References: <20041117094022.GA8682@uci.agh.edu.pl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: Performance issues in 5.3-RELEASE. X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 09:41:58 -0000 Ronald Klop [ronald-freebsd8@klop.yi.org] wrote: > > For what I have seen everybody uses snd_emu10k1. Since I use my onboard > soundcard (snd_ess* (not MPSAFE)) I have less problems with my sound under > disk load. > [...] No, I don't. I use and_emu10kx, which behaves far better under high load than the standard snd_emu10k1. > Oh, I saw a post a while ago on stable@ or on current@ about a buffer in > emu10k1. If it was increased it had less problems. [...] Yes, I've read those mails, though it's not sound-under-load issue. Not only and not mainly. It's more that the interactive work in X(org) under the high i/o in certain cases (like the mentioned untaring) is getting painful. Regards, -- There is no satisfaction in hanging a man who does not object to it. -- G.B. Shaw