[Ardour-Users] Slow graphics with large project

fred f.rech at yahoo.fr
Sat Oct 8 04:52:44 PDT 2011

Le 08/10/2011 12:20, Jörn Nettingsmeier a écrit :
> On 10/08/2011 11:22 AM, John Rigg wrote:
>> On Sat, Oct 08, 2011 at 08:48:21AM +0200, Ralf Mardorf wrote:
>>> I don't no if it would help, but some people claim, that using a value
>>> for "nice" for PAM should help, when there are issues regarding to the
>>> GUIs. I wonder if "nice" has any effect to real-time, but perhaps it 
>>> has
>>> got?!
>> Real-time processes don't use nice values. They use rtprio.
> and even if they did, nice values are all about relative priorities.
> so if a non-realtime thread is being starved by another non-realtime 
> thread that eats up all the cpu, nicing the bad guy up (or nicing the 
> good guy down) could have some effect.
> but if ardour is the only program that eats significant amounts of cpu 
> (which is usually the case in situations like these), there is no one 
> you could take extra cpu time away from...
> generally, it's good to take "nice" literally: it's a way to be nice 
> to other users - if you nice up a long-running task, you basically 
> say, ok, do this unless there are more pressing things to do. that's 
> what it was made for.
> root can use negative nice values, thereby giving more cpu to any 
> non-rt task, but that won't give you more than 100% of the available 
> cycles.
> nice is for multi-user environments. if you have to use it to balance 
> your own tasks against one another, someone has screwed up :)
> so let's bury the myth that a negative-nice permission in 
> /etc/security/limits.conf is useful. it's not.

Many thanks for this Jörn, there's a couple of years that I try to find 
the "nice" use, and have a "?" above the head !!
Have a nice week end,

More information about the Ardour-Users mailing list